matter is made of waves

MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES

" The material Universe is solely made out of Aether "

by Gabriel LaFreniere. The Blog.

This spherical standing wave system is an electron.

Actually, it is not "standing" but rather moving as a result of the Doppler effect.

Phase opposition areas appear in red. This method allows zero amplitude zones to be displayed in black.

Then it becomes possible to enhance the stunning phase wave, which is clearly visible on the right.

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's equations are fundamental.

They were well known in the math literature, yet they had never been related to the electron.

x = 2 * pi * distance / lambda

y stands for amplitude.

The amplitude singularity for x = 0 is normalized to y = 1 for phase and to y = 0 for quadrature.

JUST WAVES

New Pages (2011)

Ivanov's Waves

The Relativistic Big Bang

Matter is made of waves. Nothing else exists but the aether. Yes, I realize that this may sound quite weird. However I know a lot about optics, waves and physics and this is why I strongly affirm the wave nature of matter.

For example, one should answer this simple question: how does a photon work, from a mechanical point of view? Surely, nobody

http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm

RIPPLES ON WATER

This concentric spherical standing wave system was first proposed by Mr. Milo Wolff.

The spherical non concentric Doppler system.

Here, it seems immobile as seen from inside its frame of reference; but actually it is moving to the right.

Please note that the correct device should also undergo the Lorentz Transformations.

That is, the circular hoop should transform to a squashed ellipse and it should undulate vertically along the displacement axis.

ever proposed an acceptable explanation. The point is that, as long as this question remains unanswered, nobody is entitled to believe that photons really exist. Up to now, it was just a convenient word hiding one's ignorance. Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence of photons inside radio waves. There is no evidence of electric and magnetic fields inside them either because they may simply induce such fields inside matter as well without any need for carrying them all the way. Finally, the true nature of light, radio waves, electric and magnetic fields, gravity, energy, fields of force, electrons and matter itself is still totally unknown.

Despite our immense knowledge, we are still standing in front of the Unknown. The goal is to find the truth. So our first step should be to propose hypotheses and examine them.

Actually, this web site does explain all from a mechanical point of view. Nobody else ever proposed so many acceptable hypotheses. There are many revolutionary assumptions throughout these pages. If you are unable to propose some of your own, do not reject my ideas simply because they sound ridiculous. You should examine them first. And if you disagree with them, you need an acceptable reason.

Remember Galileo.

One may produce ripples on water by throwing a pebble into the calm waters of a lake. This produces outgoing waves.

One may also produce ingoing waves by means of a large hoop. They culminate at the center and then become outgoing waves. So they must meet ingoing waves.

The following animation shows that the superposition of ingoing and outgoing waves produce a well-known structure: standing waves.

In 2011, I could finally experiment this phenomenon using Mr. Marcotte's 3-D wave algorithm. Below is a video showing this.

11-06_3D_Spherical_Standing_Waves.mkv

Here is the program (in C): 11-06_3D_Spherical_Standing_Waves.zip

The Doppler effect.

If the hoop is slowly moved forward while producing such standing waves, they become compressed forward and dilated backward. This is the Doppler effect, which acts in the same way on ingoing and outgoing waves.

This produces the very special wave shown below. Let's call it a "moving standing wave", because this wave system truly moves.


The movie clip below shows the accurate process in a 2-D space:

Doppler_Lorentz_2D_standing_waves.avi

You are here. | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 |

I used an artificial 3-D effect in order to produce a more intuitive view. However, unlike waves on a flat surface, this moving standing wave system rather extends in a three-dimensional space. It is made out of spherical waves. It is represented in its own movingframe of reference, where it does not seem to move. This is all about inertia. But in fact, it is a highly mobile system and it may also change its speed and direction.

This wave shows all of the electron's properties.

It is unlikely that this wave is known, else it would have been systematically mentioned as an example to illustrate the Lorentz transformations. Indeed, it conforms to them in a spectacular way and even allows the theory of Relativity to be explained. For instance it shows vertical parallel zones traveling toward the right. This is the "phase wave", which was apparently discovered by Louis de Broglie. Each zone indicates places where the Lorentz t' time is the same, as a result of the time shift.

Even better, this wave exhibits all of the electron's properties. Everything indicates that it actually is an electron.

This wave is an electron.

Judge for yourself:

This wave contains energy. When immobile, this energy is constant, which explains quanta. Otherwise, its energy increases according to the gamma factor: this was predicted by Lorentz. Moreover, this wave can move. Its speed and direction do not normally change, which explains Newton's inertia. But they can change because of the radiation pressure. This leads to mechanical properties exerted from a distance. This wave also exhibits a spin as a result of its phase rotation.

This wave spectacularly conforms to the Lorentz transformations. It seems at rest as seen by an observer moving along with it. It even seems to act and react in every frame of reference as if it were at rest. From its perspective, another standing wave system seems to undergo the Doppler effect only according to its relative speed. This explains Relativity.

Thus, the presence of a "solid" particle is no longer needed to explain matter. It is even excluded. An electron isn't a metal marble covered in chrome. An electron cannot be made of matter. This site shows that it is rather matter which is solely made out of electrons.

NO AMAZING INVENTIONS

You will not find here any indication that a better knowledge of the wave nature of matter may lead to some amazing inventions. Clearly, all of matter's properties have been already discovered. The final touch was just to explain why matter behaves like this.

Unfortunately, I could not find any practical idea based on my discovery.

No, there is no new sort of energy which could be cleaner or cheaper than petroleum.

And no, I did not find the secret of levitation. I must be very clear here: if you one are impassioned of esotericism and the paranormal, you are politely invited to go elsewhere. Here, one speaks quite simply about physics and mechanics.

More pages.

The English version of this site contains 34 pages explaining matter and all physical phenomena.

Gabriel LaFreniere,

Bois-des-Filion in Québec.

Email: Please read this notice.

On the Internet since September 2002. Last update June 19, 2011.

La théorie de l'Absolu (The Theory of Absolute) , © Luc Lafrenière, May 2000.

La matière est faite d'ondes (Matter is made of Waves), © Gabriel Lafrenière, June 2002.


Graphics made since Feb. 2004 have been improved thanks to programming information from Mr. Philippe Delmotte, from Lille, France.

Mr. Delmotte also invented in June 2005 a fantastic new computerized virtual medium in order to study and experiment wave phenomena.

Matter is made of Waves

The electron

Ivanov's Waves

Spherical Standing Waves

The Doppler Effect

The Aether

The Michelson Interferometer

The Lorentz Transformations

The Time Scanner

Lorentzian Relativity Page 1



The Electron Phase Shift

The Wave Mechanics

Electrostatic Fields

Nuclear Forces

Active and Reactive Mass

Kinetic Energy

Fields of Force

The Fields of Force Dynamics

Magnetic Fields

Gravity

Light

Quarks

Protons

Atoms

Chemistry

The Wave Theory

The Wave Theory Postulates

The Theory of Evolution

Errors to Correct

Proofs and Experiences

The Huygens Principle

Conclusion

A Fantastic Wave Simulator!

Mr. Philippe Delmotte invented his amazing wave algorithm in June 2005. He finally released this first English version in May 2009:

WS2D34.rar

In a near future, those wave simulators will become a must for opticians and acousticians. It is indeed a powerful laboratory allowing one to observe and study all wave phenomena. I am quite sure that it will especially become unavoidable for studying matter waves. It is a well known fact that matter exhibits wave properties. In spite of that, up to now, very few people realized that matter waves cannot be just an analogy. Waves are waves. Here, one is dealing with standing waves,

wave fronts, amplitude, frequency, wavelength, interference patterns, and so on. The goal is to show that regular waves can have some influence on spherical standing waves. Thus, considering that the electron is a pulsating wave center, two of

them put together are surely capable of influencing each other. This is all about Newton's action and reaction law.

You may uncompress the file in any directory. Click the image, then click the "New Project" icon on the upper left corner to clear the wave area. Click the concentric wave icon to obtain a pulsating wave center. You may change its position,

amplitude, wavelength, etc. You may also add a second one to observe interferences. There is also a linear emitter (observe the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction), a circular emitter (producing circular standing waves in the center), a parabola, etc.

This is much more interesting than flavorless equations. I made a lot of similar programs and I succeeded in showing that waves are surprisingly unpredictable. Their "personality" is mainly dependent on the medium properties. That is why we

need to explore many wave algorithms. However, I already made my choice: in order to achieve the electron amplification, the aether should be made of granules repelling one another. In my picture, it must be compressible.


THE ELECTRON

This wave is an electron.

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's equations below are fundamental.


y stands for amplitude.

Please note that amplitude is normalized to y = 1 at the center for phase and to y = 0 for quadrature.

Of course, those equations are well known in the math literature.

However, they had never been related to the electron.

ELECTRONS ARE WAVES

The Huygens Principle.

I have been fascinated by optics and wave phenomena since my early age. So I know well that the Huygens Principle is always highly reliable.

Around 1995, personal computers finally became accessible, fast and practical. I then elaborated a new algorithm whose goal was to perform the summation of Huygens' well known wavelets inside a 3-D space. I was working on the Airy disk, which is the amazing interference pattern which is present at the focal plane of any convergent lens or telescope mirror.

The program was a hit. The results below represent a very seldom shown Airy disk. It should behave like this only for a very wide 180° aperture angle. This means that instead of the usual narrow light cone, the source is a full hemisphere. Look at this!

http://glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm

The Airy disk for a 180° aperture angle.

It can also be considered as one half of an electron. Rightward waves only are present.

Mr. Marcotte's equations above predict exactly the graphics shown in the lower right corner.

Two opposite 180° Airy disks adding themselves produce a spherical standing wave system.

The full lambda core indicates that a pi phase shift (actually a wave acceleration) must occur inside.

In order to achieve this, waves traveling through the core must behave in a very unusual way.

Discovering the electron.

While working on this, I already knew that matter and especially electrons should be made of spherical standing waves. I was also aware that such waves should undergo the Doppler effect, allowing them to move freely at variable speeds. However, I did not reveal this major discovery because I feared (I was wrong!) that a better knowledge of matter, considering the amazing forces involved, would lead us to a devastating Apocalypse. It is a well known fact that most discoveries such as radioactivity were always followed by more and more powerful weapons.

I could never find any indication that this could be true for the wave nature of matter, though. So, in 2002, I wrote a book which was exempt of any mystery: Matter is made of Waves. It was not the case for another book written in 2000: The Theory of Absolute. I had to make it very evanescent about the wave nature of matter (it is not my discovery, but I was the first and I am still the only person who can explain all about it: electrons, matter, forces, mechanics). My goal was simply to restore Lorentz's Relativity, whose concept is absolute. Although this point of view leads to the same predictions as Einstein's, it should be emphasized that his Relativity, while it proves to be true, is nevertheless the result of our errors while recording phenomena.

I discovered Mr. Milo Wolff's site in July 2003. Many observations appear to be correct, but I must strongly disapprove many of his ideas here, and especially the WSM (wave structure of matter) ideology using philosophy in order to make scientific discoveries. This is weird. But Milo was right at least in one point: his concentric spherical standing wave showed a full wavelength core. Both static and Doppler models, which I presented in 2002, showed only a half-wavelength core. This may seem strange, but exploring a new world is not obvious. I simply had not yet realized the similitude between the electron and the Airy disk. So I immediately returned to my Airy disk program and I found that Mr. Wolff was right. I obtained this:


Mr. Milo Wolff's static electron and its full lambda core, according to the Huygens Principle.

The moving electron's axial waves, using the Huygens Principle.

This was confirmed in July 2006 by Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte thanks to his 3-D optimized wave algorithm.

LaFreniere's wave.

This Doppler moving electron is my discovery. It was shown in my book and I called it LaFreniere's Wave when I uploaded my first Internet web pages in September 2002.

The electron can move at any speed from 0 to nearly the speed of light through the aether because it undergoes the Doppler effect (or the Lorentz transformations, which is the same). In spite of my desperate attempts to make him recognize that, M. Wolff never did.

I also showed before anyone else the correct diagrams for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Marcotte's formulas were missing, but I succeeded anyway. As a matter of fact, the Huygens Principle is far more important and relevant as a tool. The results are a convincing proof that the system should behave this way.

This wave shows all of the electron properties.

The electron's properties are well known. The list is astounding. It is so small that it has no apparent dimension. Its electrostatic charge is negative. There is also a positive antiparticle, the positron, which exhibits exactly the same properties except for the opposite charge. Its wave properties are now a well admitted fact. It can accelerate, slow down and change its direction. It can act and react as a result of an apparent contact, but also at a distance. It contains intrinsic energy according to mc^2, and additional kinetic energy according to m(gamma – 1)c^2 while moving as a result of Lorentz's mass increase. Except for the spin, which is either –1/2 or +1/2, all electrons are rigorously identical.

In addition, the electron is the main player for a lot of phenomena such as magnetic and electric fields, light and radio waves emission, and chemical reactions. It can stabilize itself around the nucleus to form an atom, and it can bind molecules together. Finally, it is a well known fact that electron and positron collisions produce quarks and gluonic fields. This indicates that in this case electrons and positrons involved do not really annihilate. They should most likely be hidden but still present inside quarks and have their standing waves joined together as gluonic fields. This strongly suggests that matter (or any other particle) is solely made of electrons.

This is a huge responsibility for so small a particle, but the electron magnificently takes up the challenge. This web site explains how it is possible.

The moving spherical standing waves calculus.

So the electron appears to be the equivalent of a very special Airy disk whose aperture angle is 360°. As seen above, just one hemisphere becomes the source of traveling waves, but adding the opposite one rather produces standing waves. This is Milo Wolff's unmoving electron. Now let's see how the Doppler effect should transform it.

Using the Huygens Principle, I submitted all of Huygens' wavelets to a Doppler effect. The algorithm then becomes a bit more complicated because the wavelength must shorten regularly from 1–beta forward to 1+beta backward (beta = v/c). The computer produced the following result, which is correct only along the displacement axis:


Jocelyn Marcotte's equations and the resulting graphics.

Marcotte's equations.

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte informed me in January 2006 that he had found a new simpler algorithm for the aether. It is different from Mr. Philippe Delmotte's, the first inventor, because square or sawtooth waves are propagating normally, while Delmotte's produces some sort of heat, a local vibration of the "aether granules". This does not mean that it is better. It is simply different, but this suggests that many options are possible for an ideal aether. However, in both cases, sine waves behave normally, much like the sound propagates inside a solid and homogeneous substance such as quartz.

Mr. Marcotte graduated in 1989 as an electric engineer from École Polytechnique, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada. He is obviously a champion in computer programming, because he firstly had to handle the new FreeBASIC programming language. He then immediately succeeded in testing my moving electron inside his own 3-D Virtual Aether. Among others, he also tested the evolution of a standard Gaussian impulse, and he seemed to be the only person on Earth who understood my Airy disk algorithm (up to now, just three people did). By March 2006, he informed me that Milo Wolff's static electron could be represented using the equation below where x stands for phase, distance or delay in radians: x = 2 * pi * distance / lambda. Then amplitude is given by:

y = sin(x) / x

This is a well known equation in the math literature. It is also known as the sinc(x) function, which is short for sinus cardinalis. But it had never been related to the electron, albeit it is a solution of Bessel's spherical function. The singularity for x = 0, y = 1 is also well established. I was using the equivalent since the beginning: y = sin(2 * pi * distance / lambda) / distance. The distance (x is more exactly the phase as a result of the delay) not being in radians, the wave shape for the electron core was wrong, though.

On July 27, 2006, Mr. Marcotte finally found that the two wave sets traveling in opposite directions and producing the electron could be calculated according to the formula below, for quadrature (pi / 2 phase):

y = (1 – cos(x) ) / x

This formula is also well known in the math literature. As far as I know both equations were mainly used in order to find the precalculus limits before performing trigonometric differential calculus.

Those formulas are awesome:

It should be pointed out that the cosine indicates quadrature (pi / 2 phase), which is normally the highest amplitude point. However, the electron central antinode is an exception because it is a full wavelength wide. A pi / 2 phase shift occurs in the center, and so the maximum amplitude there is indicated by the sine function while the cosine indicates the zero level. Anywhere else the normal amplitude level according to the distance remains the rule, though.

If all happens like I presume, in the future, those equations will be recognized as the first equations of all. They are fundamental.

Rotation.

Mr. Marcotte soon found that these equations could show the wave rotation step by step from 0 to 2*pi. He had to introduce a t time (also in radians, from 0 pi to 2 * pi), and join them together like this:

y = (cos(t) * sin(x) – sin(t) * (1 – cos(x) ) ) / x

y = (cos(t) * sin(x) + sin(t) * (1 – cos(x) ) ) / x (opposite direction)

Mr. Philippe Delmotte found this simplification in September 2006 :

y = (sin(t + x) – sin(t)) / x

I made two programs showing all this:

Aether06_Marcotte.exe Source code : Aether06_Marcotte.bas


A screenshot from the program showing Marcotte's equations.

I also made an AVI animation showing this: Aether06_Marcotte.avi

Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.exe Source Code: Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.bas

You may freely copy, distribute and even modify them. Please remember that the new 2008 Compiler for FreeBASIC (version 0.20.0b) was released with some new requirements. Gosub keyword is not allowed any more and variables including integer must be declared. However, all previous programs will still work properly on condition that they are edited as follows:

#lang "fblite"

Option Gosub

The FreeBASIC IDE editor is available here: http://fbide.freebasic.net/

Here is a screenshot from the first program:

The Doppler effect.

The on-axis regular Doppler effect is quite simple: 1 – beta forward and 1 + beta backward (beta = v/c). In addition, the Lorentz transformations indicate that the electron frequency should slow down, producing a longer basic wavelength. I applied those modifications to Marcotte's equations in order to show how its standing waves should behave while the electron is moving. Surprisingly, the well known envelope showing nodes and antinodes is still present.

The electron contraction.

Despite the longer basic wavelength, the envelope containing nodes and antinodes rather contracts according to Lorentz's contraction factor.

This is consistent with Lorentz's first equation.

More energy means more mass for the accelerated electron.

Lorentz also predicted that the electron mass should increase according to the gamma factor. This was soon verified by M. Kaufmann. The point is: if the emitter accelerates, the forward wave amplitude increases much more severely then it is reduced backward.

The Doppler program (see below) shows that the electron amplitude indeed increases at high speed. So its energy, hence its mass, increases. This also indicates that the gain in mass according to the gamma factor is pure kinetic energy: E = m(gamma–1)c^2, as a consequence of the Doppler effect.

However, this gain in energy must be measured by an observer at rest. Any instrument moving along with the electron would


A screenshot from Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.exe Source Code Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.bas

See also Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.avi

THE ELECTRON DOPPLER EFFECT

record wrong data because the Doppler effect is unnoticeable inside the same frame of reference. This was discovered in 1842 by Christian Doppler himself...

Here is a screen capture from the Doppler program:

The Lorentz transformations indicate that a "local time" takes place inside any moving system. Actually, this means that the electron wave phase should vary along the displacement axis. The phase is retarded forward according to the distance to the center. Waves are rather pulsating in advance at the rear.

The effect on the moving electron is obvious. Its standing waves no longer pulsate everywhere simultaneously. So a phase wavewhose velocity is 1 / beta (in wavelength per period units) becomes visible. The normalized beta speed equals v / c, hence the speed of light in beta units becomes c = 1.

And because the local time is the same everywhere on a transverse plane, this phase wave is plane. It is clearly noticeable (see the animations below) in the form of vertical stripes moving forward, always faster then the speed of light (1 / beta).

The electron and the Lorentz transformations.

The Lorentz transformations can be simplified using a theta angle which equals arc sin(v / c):

Lorentz's Doppler trigonometric equations.


For example, lets suppose that a material body is moving at 86.6% of the speed of light.

Then beta = .866 and theta = 60°. The first part of the first equation above means that this material body will contract to one half of its normal length (cos 60° = .5). Note that this occurs only along the displacement axis. The second part indicates that this body will have moved from x = 0 to x = .866 light-seconds (sin 60° = .866) after a one second delay. This is quite obvious: a speed of .866 light-seconds per second surely means that it will move to .866 light seconds after 1 second. One does not really need Lorentz's equation to understand this!

It should be emphasized that Lorentz established that transverse distances never change: y'=y; z'=z. This indicates that the electron wavelength along those axes should be constant. Because a transverse Doppler contraction according to g normally occurs, the electron frequency must slow down according to the same g factor. I wrote a program showing that this produces a longer basic wavelength which cancels the transverse wavelength contraction:

Electron_Doppler_effect.bas Electron_Doppler_effect.exe

Relativity.

– Moving clocks are ticking slower because they are made out of electrons whose frequency is slower.

– Matter does not contract on transverse y and z axes because the electron transverse wavelength does not change in spite of the Doppler effect.

– Matter contracts along the displacement axis because the electron axial standing waves contract according to g. Standing wave contraction is still not so well known, yet it is undisputable. Now, the Michelson interferometer absolute contraction (which was wrongly ruled out by Poincaré and Einstein) must be reconsidered because the electron really binds molecules according to its wavelength.

– Any moving observer cannot detect this Doppler effect because it is perfectly symmetrical.

The electron forward wavelength for beta = .5 is (1 – beta) / g = .577 * lambda while the backward wavelength is (1 + beta) / g = 1.732 * lambda. Note that 1 / .577 = 1.732. This is not the case for the normal Doppler effect. But here, the slower frequency and the resulting reciprocity will fool any moving observer trying to detect the Doppler effect.

I know that you will seriously doubt this. So I wrote the Ether14.exe program (source code Ether14.bas) in order to prove it. This program is highly consistent and reliable. It shows that any observer moving with the system at the same speed will be unable to measure his absolute speed through the aether. He will always think that he is at rest. He will rather think that a system which is truly at rest is moving.

This is what Relativity is all about. No more mystery. No more tricky reasoning. So forget about inane ideas such as space contraction and time dilation.

This is indeed a great discovery, and it is undisputable: the Lorentz transformations are nothing else but the mathematical expression of electron's very special Doppler effect. Please examine my program Ether17.exe (source code Ether17.bas): the Doppler effect is really generated by the modified Lorentz equations shown above.

The phase wave.

So the phase wave is a consequence of the t' time in the Lorentz transformations. Look at those animated diagrams showing the moving electron at different speeds. Assuming that the electron accelerates, intervals between vertical stripes (which indicate a phase shift) become more and more narrow, and the stripe speed slows down until it is finally very near to c:

Remember this !

Relativity is true simply because the electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor.


The moving vertical stripes indicate a phase shift as a result of Lorentz's "local time".

The accelerating electron also shows the nodes and antinodes contraction.

The phase shifts occur on vertical planes regularly spaced according to g * lambda / beta wavelengths.

This is a consequence of Lorentz's second equation..

The result is a "phase wave" moving at 1 / beta wavelengths per period, or light-seconds per second.

THE VIRTUAL AETHER TO THE RESCUE

v = 0,1 c v = 0,5 c

It should be pointed out that my "Time Scanner" conveniently exploits this phase wave in order to reproduce the Lorentz transformations. For example, scanning concentric waves moving inwards or outwards will add a Doppler effect to them. Surprisingly, it will also transform Milo Wolff's static electron into my moving electron.

This Time Scanner is another invention of mine. It proves that the Lorentz transformations are simply a Doppler effect involving a slower frequency.

Mr. Philippe Delmotte.

The Virtual Aether is Mr. Philippe Delmotte's brilliant invention (June 2005). It is a computerized virtual medium capable of reproducing any wave phenomenon. Its algorithm supposes that the aether is made of an infinite number of "granules", which can vibrate in accordance with Hooke's law. Thus those granules must initially contain kinetic energy, and also inertia, which can be seen as a memory of its precedent energy. In addition, this energy can be transmitted to the nearest neighbors.

The program algorithm is remarkably simple. Believe it or not, this pure jewel needs only three program lines!

M. Jocelyn Marcotte.

On July 10, 2006, Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte succeeded in experimenting my Doppler moving electron. Even better, he used the Lorentz transformations in order to reproduce the Doppler effect. Those transformations are not about a space-time distortion. They more simply predict the way on-axis waves contract and exhibit local phases producing a "phase wave". Mr. Marcotte used his own Virtual Aether algorithm (see WaveMechanics04.bas), which is different from Mr. Delmotte's, in a 3-D space.

In my opinion, this experiment will be related in the future as a memorable achievement. It was the ultimate proof, showing that this amazing wave can exist. Because today's science is afflicted with so many errors, this new discovery will launch a severe revolution in the world of physics.


This is a screen capture from Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's 3-D (cubic) Virtual Aether program.

And here is a 500 images AVI animation produced thanks to Mr. Marcotte's program.

See the electron moving freely to the right without any mathematical intervention.

Unfortunately, without aether waves traveling through it, no amplification can occur and it vanishes rapidly.

We will need a much larger aether in order to produce a more satisfying experience.

However, this is a flawless demonstration: this wave system is possible.

Mr. Marcotte's program displays an electron moving as predicted, but alas inside a limited 500^3 granules aether cube. In a few years, computers will run faster using multiple core processors and more memory. Then new programs using advanced code and powerful graphic cards will deliver much better results.

Clearly, the Virtual Aether results are consistent with those using the Huygens Principle. The graphics below is a screenshot from Mr. Marcotte's 3-D program. Please note that the on-axis wave structure is identical to that obtained with the Aether06_Marcotte_Doppler.exe program shown above. The overall wave structure is also identical to that obtained with the Aether_10_Marcotte.exe program, which shows that Mr. Marcotte's equations can reproduce the whole electron structure:

The electron is not infinite.

Without incoming energy, the electron would still emit spherical outgoing waves. So it would rapidly fade out. Obviously, it needs replenishment. This is accomplished by powerful and constant aether waves. Traveling waves penetrating through standing wave antinodes are deviated because of a lens effect. A small part of the energy is transferred to the standing waves. This constantly refilled energy allows the electron to exist forever.

Outgoing spherical waves weaken according to the square of the distance law. In spite of this, the light from a star, for instance, can travel for billions of years, almost infinitely. It never totally disappears.

The electron too produces outgoing spherical waves. Those are regular traveling waves. Because the electron is rather made of standing waves, amplitude can no longer be the same everywhere in both directions, making them "partially standing waves". Finally, even farther, just outgoing traveling waves remain.

The diagram below shows how the transition between those three states is possible:


The electron is not made of pure standing waves.

Far from the center, standing waves are progressively replaced by traveling waves.

Philippe Delmotte's Virtual Aether (2-D here) allows one to reproduce any wave phenomenon.

This diagram suggests that the electron, assuming that it is amplified, must be finite.

This is a very provisional result, though. We will slowly but surely improve our methods.

THE ELECTRON SPIN

Radiation pressure.

Obviously, while it is accelerating, slowing down or changing its direction, the electron cannot use its incoming waves any more. Its focal point is not compatible with their future position any more.

However, the radiation pressure mechanism can overcome this problem. Waves emitted by an electron will inevitably encounter those incoming from all other electrons, especially on the axis joining them. This will produce a very special set of standing waves, a field of force, which will also be amplified by aether waves. Half of the resulting energy is then returned and focused directly towards both electrons which created the field.

Programs to come will show clearly how and why this phenomenon is possible. Those fields of force are emitting focused and powerful traveling waves towards the electron. And because their phase and wavelength do not necessarily coincide, the electron will progressively change its position according to them.

Because the wave's amplitude is higher near the center, it turns out that half of the electron energy may be present inside a very small sphere, maybe the size of an atom. There is enough space for thousands and even millions of wavelengths, though. The other half may expand inside a much wider sphere.

The amplification process can be seen as the production of an infinite number of Huygens' wavelets. According to Huygens, the wavelets' addition must create a wave front wherever their phases coincide. Clearly, incoming wavelets can produce standing waves, but outgoing ones can only produce outgoing wavefronts.

It turns out that the wavelets' summation, hence new energy, is far greater near the center. It does not obey the square of the distance law. This indicates that very far from the electron, permanent standing waves compatible with the core phase cannot exist any more.

The Virtual Aether is a new tool which can show how a limited number of wavelets will behave. The diagram below is a good example:


Two sorts of spin for the electron and two more for the positron.

THE ELECTRON WAVELENGTH

One wave. Two particles. Four phases.

Standing waves exhibit nodes where the medium pressure remains constant, and antinodes where negative and positive energy alternate. They produce regularly spaced nodes and antinodes whose distance is a half-wavelength, but in the meantime the medium pressure is the same everywhere and the system seems to disappear.

The point is that such antinodes appear twice per period. This means that while a standing wave system is producing a positive antinode at a given x coordinate, another perfectly synchronized system placed crosswise can rather produce a negative antinode there. Both systems being identical, their pulsating period is not for an observer placed there.

So this is a relative point of view. All electrons are perfectly identical, but their unique central antinode is a privileged one. The amplitude there can be positive while it is negative inside another one, although all antinodes will be present simultaneously.

This means that while one core is positive, another one can be negative. In other words, its phase is pi shifted with respect to the other one. In the meantime, all other antinodes are present, but their position is lambda / 2 shifted. Finally, two sorts of electron are possible. The electron spin does not refer to a mechanical rotation. It is the consequence of a phase rotation, and in order to achieve this all electrons must be perfectly synchronized.

In addition, two times per period, such synchronized standing waves seem to disappear because the medium pressure is uniform everywhere. This is called quadrature, which can be either pi / 2 or 3 pi / 2. This indicates that there is some place for two other particles, two sorts of positrons, whose antinodes also appear simultaneously.

Assuming that electrons can synchronize themselves mutually, all positrons in the vicinity will less or more rapidly transform their phase and become electrons. The atomic structure makes it so that electrons are always nearer one from another, while positrons are also grouped. Moreover, the proton structure supposes that its three quarks should produce a pi / 2 phase shift in its center, making a hidden positron very stable and comfortable there.

The spin effect.

Two electrons close together behave normally in spite of the spin difference. But up and down spin produce opposite magnetic fields when the electron standing waves are adding to the positron's. A surprising unidirectional radiation appears, whose direction determines the north and south pole. This means that one hydrogen atom alone is certainly magnetic. It is a dipole, and the sun's surface clearly proves this. However, the hydrogen molecule is made of two hydrogen atoms. Because it is not magnetic, it should contain two electrons whose spin is +1/2 and –1/2.

For the same reason, any atom should contain an equal number of spins, which should be placed on opposite sides. Otherwise, the resulting atom shows a residual polarity which modifies its chemical properties. This is partially the cause of Pauli's Exclusion Principle.

The electron spin (up and down, or +1/2 and –1/2) is the consequence of a phase rotation. It can be either –pi/2, pi/2, 3pi/2, etc. The positron's quadrature is rather 0 pi, pi, 2 pi, etc. The word spin indicates a mechanical rotation, but this would suggest an axis which was never demonstrated. Moreover, such a real spin is unlikely to be possible because the electron is so small that it can be seen as a point.

So the spin is the wave period. Here is a diagram showing this:

The Wave Structure of Matter.

Because matter consists of waves, or at least exhibits wave properties, one should realize that its structure should be a Wave Structure. So the electron wavelength is definitely given by well-known formulae on wave phenomena such as the Airy disk and the


The Airy disk axial structure.

Please note the regularly spaced black zones on each side of the focal plane.

The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.

The black zones are not regularly spaced any more.

They rather suggest the Balmer series.

Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.

Below is the axial diagram for a standard Airy disk.

The Airy disk structure leads to the atomic nucleus structure.

Considering the structure of a proton and that of a neutron, it becomes clear that they cannot join together unless their quarks perfectly fit inside the Airy disk structure. And they very likely should alternate in order to minimize the proton's repulsive charge. Except for the positive charge, which may be explained by the presence or an additional positron, protons and neutrons are almost identical because they contain three quarks. Their mass is also quite similar. A quark is made of two electrons unified by a gluonic field. Finally, because the black zones are radiation-free, they are the perfect place for capturing those electrons.

In addition, this strongly suggests that the distance between electrons inside a quark should match the distance between the two first black zones on each side of the focal plane. The bright white central zone is the result of the gluonic field inward radiation. Incidentally, far from the focal plane, those black zones become weaker. That is why very large nuclei become unstable.

This diagram shows that for relatively wide apertures (f/1.2 here), this distance is about 20 times the electron wavelength. But it would be much longer for narrower aperture angles. Unfortunately, the exact angle is very hard to figure out because the gluonic field energy distribution is not that of a regular lens or telescope mirror. Thus the electron exact wavelength remains a mystery. So far.

The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern leads to the atomic structure.

Below is the axial diagram for the standard Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which is easily observable using a laser beam passing through a 5 or 10 mm hole (about 1/4"), or the beam generated by a star as seen inside a pinhole camera.

The Wave Structure of Atoms.

The electron wavelength may also be given by Fresnel's formula:

L = r^2 / (n * lambda)

Fresnel's number n = 1; n = 2... is an integer indicating the black zones position. L stands for the atomic layer distance and r is the radius of the radiating area. The black zone on the right shown above is the last one, whose distance is more simply given by:

L = r^2 / lambda


UNCERTAINTY

The important point is that the external atomic layer (except for the one responsible for chemical bindings) should also match this distance, and once again the electron wavelength should be given by:

Electron wavelength = r^2 / L

The radius is probably that of a quark, although it could also be that of the whole atom nucleus. More recent studies about multiple emitters (large nuclei containing 200 protons and neutrons consist of about 1200 electrons regularly spaced inside a 3-D space) indicate that the basic diffraction pattern for only 4 emitters, assuming that they are placed crosswise, may be superimposed and produce similar patterns for any number of identical structures on condition that all spaces are the same.

So the best way to obtain the electron wavelength will be to investigate multiple and synchronized emitters in a 3-D space. Then all possible wavelengths will have to be compared to the Airy disk structure shown above in order to select which one produces compatible results.

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment.

In 1921, Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach conducted an experiment using fast moving silver atoms (47 electrons and protons) passing through a magnetic field. The goal was to examine how the last unpaired electron would behave. They found that the magnetic field separates the beam into two distinct parts. They thought that this indicated "two possible orientations of the electron".

In 1925, Samuel A goudsmith and George E. Uhlenbeck proposed that the electron had an intrinsic angular momentum and the word "spin" rapidly followed. A similar spin was also attributed to the proton and even to its three quarks as a "fractional" and "colored" charge.

This is ridiculous because the electron alone does not behave like this. A silver atom behave as a whole, as well a the hydrogen atom, whose unique electron is also unpaired, hence magnetic.

As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is the result of the magnetic field created by both the electron and the proton. This experiment separates only two behaviors while there are actually four possible combinations. As demonstrated below, a pi / 2 phase difference produces an astounding unidirectional radiation which is the true cause of a magnetic field.

Here, the electron is very near to a proton or positron whose phase is pi / 2 shifted.

Note the axial unidirectional waves responsible for magnetic fields.

Any opposite spin would reverse the wave direction.

But opposite spins on both sides would make no difference.

I am frankly appalled that so many people are still clinging to a first and quite uncertain interpretation. After all, magnetic fields remain a totally unexplainable phenomenon, and the electron structure and mechanism as well. In front of so many uncertainties, one should definitely be more careful and doubtful.

The errors of the past must be corrected.

Let us face it: the electron structure and mechanism is still totally unknown. Most (not to say all) of physical phenomena such as magnetic fields also remain unexplained. Facing such a situation, one should think a lot about it and, if possible, propose some hypotheses. This web site does propose a full set of them, which suppose that matter is made of waves. Because it is the only mechanically acceptable theory up to now, it cannot be ignored any longer.

This theory seems suspicious mainly because it is not consistent with today's false but well accepted ideas such as electromagnetic waves or photons. The problem here is certitude. Why are most scientists so confident about their knowledge? There should be a place for doubt. Haven't they ever heard of Descartes?

The scientific world is facing an enormous problem: it is stuck in a blind alley. Many well accepted ideas are simply false, and the sum of them is an impediment to new discoveries. For example, Maxwell presented his equations on "electromagnetic waves" in 1873. Surprisingly, all scientists immediately agreed with that. This attitude is unacceptable. Maxwell just forged a set of equations. He never


| 01 | You are here. | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

showed that electric and magnetic fields could really travel through space at the speed of light. He never explained the true nature and mechanism of electric and magnetic fields. And finally subsequent physicists accepted Einstein's idea that those fields should be packed inside photons and that they could move at the same speed in any frame of reference (no aether needed for this pure contradiction!).

Let's be clear: electromagnetic waves do not exist. Fresnel tried to explain polarization but failed (one more error): there is no aether transverse vibrations. The light is made of regular longitudinal traveling waves, but it is emitted by at least two particles. Suppose that one emitter is moving in a circular motion while another one emits a perfectly synchronized signal. Then the interference pattern must undulate. The undulation plane determines the polarization. What's more, the frequency is that of the undulations, not that of the electrons. It is a secondary frequency. In spite of the electron's unique very high frequency, lower frequencies become possible on a very large spectrum from very low radio frequencies up to gamma rays.

Maxwell's equations yield correct results because those electric and magnetic fields are virtually present inside radio waves. Because the phase is undulating, the electron waves can indeed produce such fields when they encounter some matter. They simply reproduce the same electron motion which was going on during the emission. Except for the square of the distance law, the emission and reception process is perfectly symmetric.

So all happens as though magnetic fields were traveling. But they are not.

Truth takes time.

Einstein's Relativity proves to be true, but it is the consequence of our inevitable errors. It is false from an absolute point of view. There is no true Relativity because Galileo's Relativity Principle is wrong. Let's be realistic: space simply cannot contract. Lorentz's Relativity is totally true, though, and it should be clear that the aether is not just a preferred frame of reference. It is the only one, it is Cartesian, not Galilean, and it is absolute. In addition, Relativity does not involve gravity, and gravity cannot bend space (did you really believe that?). Non-euclidian geometry is false. So there is no "general Relativity".

One could list tons of such errors. The goal is to eliminate them and restore the truth. This will require a long and hard reconstruction period.

This web site was on the Internet six years ago and the truth still takes time. However, we are providing more and more proofs. My "mobile spherical standing wave" works. It is a fact. It is undisputable. And because all of its properties strongly suggest that it could be an electron, it should be an electron.

We should admit that our knowledge is uncertain. I am confident that more and more people will examine this theory. Time will finally let the truth emerge and shine.

In the future, their curiosity being still awake, more and more students will be aware of the Wave Nature of Matter. They will doubt today's dogmatic and weird theories. Descartes' doubt is invincible. They are more likely to accept the idea that matter is solely made out of waves, and some of them will boldly go ahead.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last updated November 7, 2009.


IVANOV'S WAVES

If the wavelengths differ, standing waves still exhibit their characteristic node and antinode structure.

Mr. Ivanov discovered that this structure and its energy were moving according to the wavelength difference.

He found that the node and antinode pattern was undergoing a contraction.

It must also be pointed out that this system is experiencing the de Broglie phase wave.

All this is consistent with the Alpha Transformations, which apply to all waves including acoustic.

Theoretically, a standing wave is the result of two wave trains traveling in opposite direction. One may add that both amplitude and wavelength should be equal in order to obtain regular standing waves. If the wavelength differ, though, the results are quite surprising.

From 1981 to 1990, Mr. Yuri Nikolaevich Ivanov conducted meticulous experiences using sound waves in the presence of wind. What's more, he proposed some totally new and interesting hypotheses on matter mechanics based on this phenomenon, which he called "lively standing waves". However, because he deserves it, I suggest that it should be named after him. "Ivanov's waves" is indeed a more specific and appropriate name.

Ivanov's waves were the missing link between Lorentz's Relativity and the still-to-establish matter mechanics. This phenomenon must be taken to be the basis of all laws of physics. Hence, it should systematically be considered when it comes to studying a moving system, especially in optics and acoustics. Fortunately, it is easily understandable and verifiable.

This is no theory, this is just elementary facts.

Here is the English version of Mr. Yuri Ivanov's website:

http://mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm

1 –Motion.

The animated Gif below shows that, if the wavelength differ, the classic node and antinode envelope is moving.

Ivanov's waves motion.

Wavelength ratio: R = lambda2 / lambda

1 = 3

System speed: alpha = (R – 1) / (R + 1) = 0.5 c

Acoustic contraction: 1 – alpha2 = 0.75

Relativistic contraction: Sqr(1 – alpha2) = 0.866

Mr. Ivanov pointed out that the wave intrinsic energy is moving at the system speed, which I called "Alpha". Obviously, each node being at a constant zero energy point, it behaves like a mirror. The reflected energy is moving to and fro between two successive nodes so that it finally follows the system.

That is why it is misleading to consider that standing waves contain two sets of traveling waves. They may be generated and, most of the time, calculated this way. But, from a mechanical point of view, the resulting system is actually different. It is especially the case for spherical standing waves, where the full-wavelength central antinode definitely does not submit to this interpretation.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_plane.htm

It is a well known fact that traveling waves do not interact. However, standing waves do. The antinode position may be slightly shifted sideways if the amplitude is no longer the same on both sides. It is the fundamentals of matter mechanics.

In spite of this, I did use the theoretical wave addition method in order to produce Ivanov's waves below simply because it produces satisfactory results most of the time.

Standing_Waves_02_Theoretical.mkv

2 – Contraction.

Apparently, the Doppler contraction phenomenon was discovered by A. A. Michelson, who tried to detect it by means of his famous interferometer in 1887. Henri Poincare was referring to it as "the aberration" and he frequently spoke about "the aberration squared". Because of Einstein's Relativity, Lorentz's contraction factor was replaced later by the gamma factor, which is the reciprocal: gamma = 1 / g.

In brief, there was no consensus on the choice of a symbol standing for Lorentz's contraction factor. The letter "g" appears relevant because of its relationship with the Greek symbol gamma. Its value is usually related to the normalized speed beta, which applies to the electron and to matter, but one may use the alpha speed as well:

g = Sqr(1 – alpha2)

The three animated Gifs below indicate that, if the wavelength differ, the node and antinode envelope is experiencing a contraction. The regular acoustic Doppler shift produces a transverse contraction according to g. The contraction along the displacement axis x is given by g squared. The relativistic Doppler shift produces a less severe contraction according to g on the x axis and there is no transverse contraction.

Please note that the animations below are displaying Ivanov's standing waves as seen by an observer moving at the alpha speed. This is why the node and antinode pattern seems to be stationary. However, it is actually moving at the alpha speed with respect to the medium. I had to make this difficult choice years ago because the size of such animated Gifs had to be very small. Unfortunately, this way, the phase wave is no longer displayed correctly.

No contraction.

Same wavelength. The system is stationary.

Acoustic contraction: g2 = 0.75

Wavelength ratio: R = 3; alpha = 0.5 c; g = 0.866.


Acoustic contraction: g2 = 0.5

Wavelength ratio: R = 5.8257; alpha = 0.7071 c; g = 0.7071.

Mr. Ivanov also pointed out that, assuming that electronic waves are responsible for chemical bindings, this behavior obviously explains the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. As a matter of fact, Lorentz had shown that such a contraction perfectly explains Michelson's null result, but rigorously on condition that the frequency slows down according to his contraction factor.

Most of the time, although it may be generated otherwise, the wavelength difference is caused by the Doppler effect. Unfortunately, Mr. Ivanov only experimented on sound waves, which are undergoing a severe contraction (and also a transverse one) because of the acoustic Doppler effect. The relativistic Doppler effect produces a less severe contraction because the basic frequency is slowing down according to Lorentz's factor. In this case, no transverse contraction occurs any more and this is why our absolute motion with respect to the aether becomes unverifiable.

The video below shows that Ivanov's waves are undergoing a less severe contraction if the Doppler effect is relativistic.

Standing_Waves_06_Doppler.mkv

I am of an opinion that explaining matter contraction was Mr. Ivanov's most significant breakthrough. It definitely sheds some new light on Lorentz's Relativity. The phase wave (see below), which was discovered by Mr. de Broglie many years after Lorentz's 1904 paper, should also improve our comprehension of Lorentz's "local time".

3 – The phase wave.

Below, the phase wave is well visible again in the form of regularly spaced black stripes moving toward the right.

The phase wave speed is given by: 1 / alpha.

Its wavelength is given by: [contracted wavelength] / alpha

The equivalent video clip below was generated thanks to the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium.

Standing_Waves_01_Ivanov.mkv

Today's most accurate clocks are regulated using oscillation periods which are known to be amazingly constant. However, the phase wave is delaying the pulsation phase in the front of a moving system so that the period fluctuates along the displacement axis. The period is in advance at the rear and hence, the hour displayed by several moving clocks is progressively retarded forward according to their x coordinate. This is the true cause of Lorentz's "local time".

So, apart from ticking slower, moving clocks exhibit a time shift. The most spectacular confirmation of this is that a clock synchronization procedure ends up with the equivalent time shift because of the relativistic Doppler effect. The regular acoustic Doppler effect is incompatible with such a result.

THE ALPHA TRANSFORMATIONS

Ivanov's waves may be displayed on a computer screen using the Lorentz transformations. However, Lorentz's original set does not yield correct results because of multiple anomalies, including space and time incorrect interpretation. It appeared preferable to elaborate some specific transformations which apply solely to Ivanov's waves. I called them "Alpha Transformations" because they are marking the beginning of a great new science trek. Thanks to it, studying Relativity and Matter Mechanics will henceforth be much easier.

The goal here is not to deal with space and time. Theoretically, Ivanov's waves are just the result of the addition of two wave trains propagating in opposite directions and whose wavelength differ. The only available variables are those two wavelengths. Thus, we are in the presence of a quite basic physical phenomenon which should definitely not require the use of non-Euclidean geometry...


Firstly, the variables x and x' are to be given in wavelength units. They must be converted into pixels afterwards because the goal is to display Ivanov's waves on the computer screen. Secondly, the phase t must be given in wave period units, and then converted into radians. Although they are space and time units, they are definitely not to be given in meters and seconds.

Surely, today's Relativity is a mess because the equivalent precalculus for the electron and for matter was not carefully explained by Lorentz, Larmor and Poincare. Fortunately, one must also get rid of Maxwell's equations because the Alpha Transformations also apply to acoustic waves, which are not "electromagnetic" in nature.

The table below should be useful in order to deal with Ivanov's waves. The two wavelengths, forward and backward, are the only variables. It is shown that, in all cases, the x and t variables must be given according to the geometrical mean wavelength. As a matter of fact, in the case of the acoustic Doppler effect, the forward and backward wavelengths are shorter. Thus, x and t will refer to a shorter geometrical mean wavelength and the Alpha Transformations will finally reproduce the acoustic contraction.

The Alpha Transformations apply to Ivanov's waves.

They may be considered as a preliminary version of the Lorentz Transformations.


Below is the computer program showing that the Alpha Transformations really work. The small video next to it was generated using this program. You may check or copy the source code if you want to reproduce Ivanov's waves by your own means.

Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.bas

Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.mkv

It should be emphasized that the Alpha speed is also that of Fields of forces, which are responsible for all forces. Fields of force are indeed generated by electrons, protons and other particles because the in-between space is filled up with waves traveling in opposite directions. It is especially the case between two electrons, where an electrostatic field of force takes place. For example, let's consider a billiard ball hitting another one. Their speed being different, the relativistic Doppler effect produces two different wavelengths so that the field moves at the "alpha" speed. The field energy is also moving at the alpha speed so that some of the moving ball energy is progressively transferred into the unmoving ball. That is why the latter is finally accelerated while the other one is stopped.

As seen from the electrostatic field, however, all happens as if the two billiard balls were bouncing back at the same speed. In this case, there are two equal and opposite actions. This is how Relativity works: it is a matter of point of view. Hence, the action and reaction Principle should rather be called the "double action Principle".

You may observe in the video below that the true speed of the field of force in not exactly the arithmetic mean speed. It is rather the relativistic mean speed.

Alpha_Field_of_Force.7c.mkv

The speed of the moving emitter is 0.7071 times the speed of light. The other one is stationary. However, the observer is moving at

This diagram is a clear demonstration that the Alpha Transformations are related to Pythagoras' theorem.

The geometric mean wavelength is to be compared to the arithmetic mean wavelength.


the alpha speed so that both of them seem to be moving in opposite directions. Please note that the transverse wavelength remains the same for both systems. This is possible only if the pulse rate slows down according to Lorentz factor.

May I insist on the fact that fields of force contain energy, and that matter contains mostly fields of force. Scientists should realize that energy is a major problem today and that searching how fields of force work is the most decisive step to solve it.

THE ALPHA SPEED AS A REFERENCE

Because the Earth's absolute motion with respect to the aether is unverifiable, Lorentz's Relativity rather relies on a preferred frame of reference, which is postulated to be stationary. It is not, actually, but this assumption allows one to discover an even more surprising fact. The truth is that, in the presence of many frames of reference whose speed differ, any of them may be postulated to be stationary without creating any anomaly in the overall results.

The goal here is to compare two systems moving in opposite directions at the same speed. Their contraction and their "time" (at least at the origin) being the same, there is no "space-time transformation" to be considered any more. It can be shown that those two moving frames of reference may easily be exchanged according to Poincare's Relativity Postulate using the intermediate "Alpha" preferred frame of reference. Because of its absolute Cartesian coordinates, it is the best way to reconcile the two other ones. If one uses the Alpha intermediate speed, the twin paradox and the train and tunnel paradox are especially easier to deal with. Thus, there are finally three frames of reference to be considered. This new approach is definitely preferable to Poincare's or Einstein's Relativity, which proves to be incorrect in this case. On the contrary, Lorentz's version of Relativity still holds true.

It is possible to elaborate a mathematical demonstration of this, but the Time Scanner can easily perform this transformation in a much more dramatic way. The result is that the Doppler effect may be canceled or induced even though both results are produced using the same procedure.

This video shows the same phenomenon in a much better way: Time_Scanner_Doppler.mkv

Fortunately, the alpha speed is the ultimate answer to this apparently unsolvable problem. It doesn't work with acoustic waves, but it does reveal some fascinating results if the frequency of a moving system slows down according to Lorentz's "slower time" hypothesis.

On the one hand, it is easy to consider that two systems are moving at the same speed in opposite directions. But on the other hand, it is no longer possible to consider that one of them is stationary while the other one is moving at twice its previous speed. This assumption is incompatible with Poincare's law of speed addition.

It turns out that the alpha intermediate speed is not given exactly by the arithmetic mean speed. It is rather given using Poincare's law of speed addition below, the beta speed (which equals beta prime in this case) being the speed of the two systems moving in opposite direction.

beta'' = (beta + beta') / (1 + beta * beta')

Or more simply: alpha = (1 – g) / beta

Below is a video which clearly shows that, in order to obtain exactly the same wavelength on both side of a reflecting screen (this is called the Hertz test), the only possible intermediate speed is the alpha speed. One emitter is stationary and the other one is moving


away at a beta speed, producing a relativistic backward redshift.

Standing_Waves_05_Alpha.mkv

Because the observer is recording the same wavelength on both sides, which seems to undergo the relativistic redshift, he is entitled to presume that he himself is stationary and that the emitters are moving away from him at the same speed.

THE HERTZ TEST IN A MOVING ENVIRONMENT

Using acoustic waves, Mr. Ivanov could elaborate an in-depth analysis of his "lively standing waves" in a moving environment. However, the alpha speed as a reference using Poincare's law of speed addition may appear rather exotic. There is one situation where the alpha speed remains perfectly relevant, though. In this case, two wave generators on both sides are truly stationary and a reflecting screen is moving along the in-between axis. The Hertz test is well known to produce standing waves, but in this case the screen is moving. Hence, although the original waves are not undergoing the Doppler effect, the reflection process produces two Doppler shifts in a cascade. The waves are severely contracted on one side while they are rather severely dilated on the other side.

The Doppler effect on a moving screen is not frequently shown. So, it is worthwhile to carefully examine the results on both sides in the video below. Clearly, Ivanov's standing waves are still present. What's more, they are nevertheless moving at the alpha speed, which is that of the screen.

Standing_Waves_04_Hertz.mkv

It should be emphasized that this phenomenon works with both acoustic and Hertzian waves. The node and antinode structure is moving at the screen speed, but the contraction differs on both sides. The absolute motion of the screen with respect to air may easily be deduced by comparing the two resulting wavelengths. However, assuming that the reflecting screen is unmoving and that the two emitters are moving at the same speed and in the same direction, it is still impossible to detect their absolute speed through the aether because of the relativistic Doppler effect.

PARTIALLY STANDING WAVES

The animation below shows how standing waves behave when dilated or compressed waves are two times stronger. Such standing waves produce a very peculiar peapod-like envelope. This unusual form of Ivanov's waves is interesting because electrons contain such "partially moving standing waves" beyond a certain distance. As a matter of fact, when electrons move closer, electrostatic fields of force progressively transform to gluonic fields.

The interesting point is that the in-between form is experiencing some surprising phase shifts. This is why electrons are no longer repelling one another when they come very close together. Because of the phase shift, a neutron may contain only electrons and still exhibit a neutral charge.

Partially moving standing waves. Forward contracted waves are stronger.

E1 = 67 %, E

2 = 33 %, beta = .5

Partially moving standing waves. Backward dilated waves are stronger.

E1 = 33 %, E2 = 67 %, beta = .5

TRANSVERSE STANDING WAVES

Before analyzing transverse plane standing waves, one must be familiar with transverse plane traveling waves. Opticians are aware that any large plane (and equiphase) emitting device produces plane waves which are experiencing the well known Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern. However, most of them still ignore that this interference pattern is still present if the emitter is moving. In this case, the equiphase pulsation must be transformed using Lorentz's t' phase wave. In addition, the emitting device must be contracted in the direction of motion according to Lorentz's contraction factor g. The two small videos below are a clear indication that we are on the right track.

Doppler_Lorentz_2D_transverse_Fresnel_diffraction.avi


Parabola_Transverse_Doppler.mkv

Let's consider two train cars at rest placed side by side on two parallel railways. Their flat sides are reflecting plane sound waves so that one can produce standing waves in the in-between space. However, if the train cars are moving, those waves must travel according to an angle in order to follow them through the wind. This is Lorentz's theta angle, which is given by: ArcSin(beta). Thus, because they are tilted, many successive wavefronts moving in opposite directions produce a scissor effect.

In addition, the resonance frequency must slow down according to Lorentz factor g. Obviously, the wavefronts must travel a longer absolute distance in order to reach the other car. Their constant absolute speed being that of sound, the traveling time is finally slower.

Such transverse "lively standing waves" behave in a very strange manner. In the animation on the left, I showed what happens if those trains are traveling rather slowly : 0.1 times the speed of the sound (about 76 mph). In this case, the scissor effect is obvious. On the right, the trains are moving at 0.5 times the speed of the sound. The Time Scanner shows that the intersection points follow the places where the Lorentz t' time does not change. Scanning these diagram at the phase wave speed (1 / alpha) would neutralize the scissor effect and produce regular standing waves.

The tilted wavefronts produce a scissor effect.

This is why the system seems to move rightward at the phase wave speed.

Transverse "lively standing waves".

The wavelength as measured on the y and z axes never changes.

The apparent wavelength as measured on the x axis is that of the phase wave: lambda * g / alpha.

This astounding phenomenon is more clearly shown in this video:

Phase_Wave.mkv

My moving electron exhibits both the axial and transverse phase waves.

Surprisingly, they produce two superimposed incoming and outgoing Doppler effects.


It should be emphasized that the alpha transformations do reproduce those transverse phenomena on condition that Lorentz's y and z equations below are added to the Alpha equation set:

y ' = y z ' = z

The transverse system is somewhat different from Ivanov's one because it does not exhibit a wavelength difference any more. The basic wavelength which is referred to may be that of the stationary system. However, because of the tilted wavefronts, the wavelength as measured along a moving transverse x or y axis is only apparent. Thus, the transverse wavelength apparently never changes even though it does, actually.

The important point is that, from 1995 to 1904, Lorentz, Poincare and Larmor were working hard in order to find out why the Earth's absolute motion with respect to the aether could not be detected. All experiments had demonstrated that motion always appear relative. This is the basis of Relativity. Obviously, the very first condition in order to obtain such a result is that transverse distances should non change. Any contraction or expansion is indeed easily verifiable when two systems meet on the same plane.

And because distances may be easily measurable using a given wavelenght, it is of the utmost importance that the Doppler effect does not change it. The transverse electron wavelenght, which is responsible for chemical bindings, should not change either. Fortunately, Lorentz's slower time (the pulsation rate, actually) does produce this constant transverse wavelength in spite of the Doppler effect.

Ivanov's waves perfectly explain the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.

The important point is that Ivanov's waves contract. When he linked this phenomenon to the well-known Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, Mr. Ivanov was surely aware that he had accomplished a giant leap in explaining Relativity.

I would like to insist on the importance of Mr. Ivanov's discovery. Lorentz correctly explained Relativity in 1904, but his contraction hypothesis was rejected by scientists because he could not explain such a prodigy. Finally, Lorentz's Relativity was never thoroughly examined and Lorentz himself abandoned it.

The question is: Why does matter contract? The quote below is the answer to this fundamental question.

Mr. Yuri Ivanov's outstanding explanation of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.

As a matter of fact, the node displacement explains matter motion and contraction. In addition, Mr. Ivanov noticed that the wave intrinsic energy was also moving at the same speed. Today, it is a well-known fact that matter contains energy. This is indeed another clear indication that we are still on the right track. The Alpha transformations only apply to Ivanov's standing waves because they are compatible with acoustic waves, yet they are obviously similar to the Lorentz transformations. The only difference is the use and the signification of the x and t variables. Now, the Lorentz Transformations are clearly linked to a highly practical and verifiable phenomenon: Ivanov's standing waves.

Thus, the Lorentz version of Relativity should now be reconsidered. Ivanov's waves applied to matter perfectly explain why the Earth's absolute motion with respect to the aether cannot be detected. At last! We do not have to deal with Einstein's esoteric ideas about space and time any more.

RYTHMODYNAMICS

I would add that Mr. Ivanov already tried to solve the energy problem using what he calls "Rythmodynamics". This is brilliant. I developed my own interpretation of rythmodynamics, though, because traveling waves do not interact. Only standing waves do, and this is good news because fields of force and matter do consist of standing waves. Clearly, one must inevitably consider fields of force when it comes to analyzing forces and energy.

Some characteristic frequencies are already capable of extracting some energy from matter. For example, visible light produces chemical reactions in plants. Infrared radiation or heat are involving lower frequencies or vibrations which cause hydrocarbons to burn in the presence of oxygen. Such phenomena are possible because of the external 8-electron atomic layer, which is responsible for chemical bindings. I already shown that the cubic structure of the atom perfectly explains chemical bindings. This strongly indicates that electrons do not rotate around the nucleus. If they are stationary, they may be captured in front of any of the 8 vertices if this position is unoccupied. In the image below, the electron from one atom was captured by another atom.

The point is that this configuration is highly elastic. In spite of the strong forces which maintain the molecule cohesion, it is capable of high amplitude vibrations. Heating this molecule beyond a given threshold (or exposing it to a strong infrared radiation) will ultimately separate the two atoms. This process requires energy, though.

"As a model, any solid body can be considered as a package of standing waves, with atoms in their nodes. Atoms are the sources of waves, and standing waves are the result of interference. Any displacement of a node is thought to provoke the inevitable shift of the appropriate atom."

– Yuri Ivanov (http://mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm)


| 01 | 02 | You are here. | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Chemical bindings are vulnerable to vibrations.

On the contrary, cold carbon and oxygen atoms do not normally produce carbon monoxide or dioxide. They must be heated so that the quivering movement randomly forces electrons from one atom to penetrate any of the capture areas of another atom. What's interesting here is that this process produces strong additional vibrations because the two atoms react as if they were tied up into one molecule by a powerful spring. The resulting heat may bind more atoms together in the vicinity so that a chain reaction is triggered. This is how fire is created.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is a well known fact that, inside protons and neutrons, gluonic fields are responsible for extremely powerful forces.

Electrostatic fields of force between distant electrons are made out of two sets of spherical traveling waves.

The gluonic field structure is similar, but the ellipses remain stationary because they are made out of two sets of standing waves.

We should definitely examine how all those fields of force do react to different input frequencies. Any stable field of force actually reacts like a compressed spring. Strong vibrations on a constant frequency or on a series of constant harmonics may cause gluonic fields to transform to a lower or higher energy configuration, or to be created or destroyed, triggering a burst of energy. By chance, because of the resonance conditions, the process may even trigger a chain reaction.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update March 4, 2011.


SPHERICAL STANDING WAVES

The electron is a spherical standing wave system.

Surprisingly, spherical standing waves can move as a result of the Doppler effect.

They are not "standing" any more.

Regular spherical standing waves.

This 3-D view is interesting, albeit it is artificial.

The phrase "standing waves" is misleading because such waves can move. Then the node and antinode pattern undergoes a contraction according to the Lorentz transformations. It is clearly visible in the animation shown above. Please observe that the first black antinode near the center is contracted horizontally as well as subsequent layers. The faster they move, the more they become elliptic. But they never contract transversally.

Exactly the way Lorentz predicted.

The most ignored science.

There was almost no practical information about spherical standing waves on the net, except for Milo Wolff's site. So I had to develop the whole science by myself. It was worth the effort because I could finally explain matter and all forces. I would like to give a special thanks to MM. Serge Cabala, Philippe Delmotte, Anselme Dewavrin and Jocelyn Marcotte, among others, who supported and helped me in this enterprise. I suppose that some ancient pioneers did find interesting equations and properties in the past, but up to now there was very few evidence of them.

The wave science is the most ignored and scorned of all. It is hard to explain because nuclear physicists know since many decades that matter exhibits wave properties. Clearly, such waves cannot be plane. They should be spherical, and more likely spherical standing waves. In addition, because matter can move, a Doppler effect should occur.

This is quite obvious.

If waves are involved, the first thing to do should be to study waves. But curiously, there is some sort of taboo regarding matter waves. Nobody ever dares to show them.

The unmoving concentric system.

Firstly, one should examine the unmoving spherical standing wave system, which is simpler.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_spherical.htm

The wave addition is rather complex.

The result is an amazing full lambda wide core, where a pi phase shift occurs.

The electron amplitude.

THE NON-CONCENTRIC SYSTEM

The moving electron undergoes the Doppler effect.

Theoretical incoming and outgoing wave fronts are not concentric any more, but they remain perfectly spherical.

The wave addition reveals a stunning "phase wave", whose speed is given by: 1 / beta in wavelengths per period units.

The animated diagram above artificially displays spherical standing waves with a 3-D effect for the central plane only. Standing waves on water should more or less look like this, but electrons are actually spherical standing waves.

The Huygens Principle reveals that energy incoming from only one half of a sphere should cross the focal plane in a very special way, explaining why the central antinode diameter is a full lambda wide. Then adding the second half produces the whole system:


The .5 c moving electron diagram showing its characteristic envelope still present.

NO INCOMING WAVES.

Standing waves are not made of traveling waves. It is a totally different wave system which behaves in accordance with Hooke's law.

For calculation purposes, such waves can indeed be considered as two sets of waves traveling in opposite directions. This is a very useful method for computer programs, and I used it for the diagrams shown above.

However, one must observe what is really going on inside the medium substance when standing waves are present.

For instance, using a loudspeaker, one can produce standing waves inside a pipe. The traveling waves penetrate inside the pipe, and on condition that the wavelength is compatible, a resonance is obtained. This occurs because the pipe ends act like screens and do not allow all of the energy to get out in just one pulse.

Turning off the loudspeaker will not make the resonance stop immediately. Theoretically, a lossless system (no heat or energy loss) with both ends hermetically closed would continue to vibrate eternally. The air is simply compressed inside antinodes, then the pressure energy is transferred into kinetic energy, and so on. The same process occurs for lossless springs moving back and forth, as predicted by Hooke's law: the extension is proportional to the force. The point is: there are no more traveling waves there. Just standing waves. Especially, nodes are constant zero energy points, thus they are incompatible with traveling waves.

One may need incoming traveling waves in order to establish standing waves, but they are no longer needed once the system is well established.

Additionally, if some energy is actually radiated, it may be replaced by amplification. This is especially true for electronic oscillators.

The electron is a pulsating wave system.

For the same reason, electrons must have been created in the past using incoming waves. Such a situation is not likely to happen because aether waves frequency and phase very rarely coincide for a given point, but it is still possible. One chance out of billions and billions.

However, once it has been created, the electron can remain stable because its standing waves are constantly amplified by aether waves. This can be explained by a lens effect. For example, objects seen above a fire become more or less blurred because the speed of light is not the same for cold and hot air. For the same reason, the sound itself will also be scattered above a fire. Actually, any sound wave is surely scattered by spherical standing waves made of sound because this modifies the air density.

This means that in-phase incoming waves are not needed any more. The electron just needs constant and powerful waves incoming from all matter in the universe, whose phase or wavelength may be different. Then it goes on vibrating and pulsating spherical waves eternally.


Standing waves progressively transform to traveling waves.

Far away, just outgoing spherical waves remain.

DISPLAYING OUTGOING SPHERICAL WAVES.

One can easily write a software displaying outgoing waves. The wave phase is given by:


The x variable stands more exactly for the phase delay in radians. However, this becomes inaccurate for a smaller than pi distance because the electron is a very special emitter. It exhibits a pi / 2 phase offset at the center.

On September 26, 2007, I found a correction which proves to be accurate. The x delay must be modified like this if x < pi:

If x < pi Then x = x + (pi / 2) * (1 – x / pi) ^ 2

This Basic (or FreeBasic) instruction will add the pi / 2 phase offset in the center. In addition, the amplitude there will be displayed very smoothly.

This wave generator bears the name of Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte, who discovered in March 2006, and demonstrated with his own 3-D Virtual Aether, that the well known sin(x) / x formula matches the electron waves. It is especially useful here because it is amazingly simple.

Adding a t time in radians will then produce a full rotation. Let us suppose that a full rotation needs 48 images:

t = 2 * pi * (image No.) / 48


If x < pi Then x = x + (pi / 2) * (1 – x / pi) ^ 2

y = sin (x – t) / x

Here is the program showing this:

Marcotte_Wave_Generator.bas Marcotte_Wave_Generator.exe

The Marcotte Spherical Wave Generator.

Note the pi / 2 (or lambda / 4) additional expansion in the center, which is the rule for the electron out-waves.

Thanks to this wave generator, the computer can especially reproduce the interference pattern created between two electrons or positrons. It becomes a field of force, a powerful standing wave system because it is also amplified by aether waves. It must be evaluated with respect to the distance and also the spin because there are four possible phases at the particle center.

The electrostatic "biconvex" field of force is made of hyperbolic-ellipsoidal standing waves.


The structure is similar to that of the diffractive lens, so they should produce an Airy disk too with a focusing effect.

The wave phase in the center changes according to the distance and the particle spin.

The pi / 2 phase offset in the center expands all the spherical waves to an additional lambda / 4 position. It is of the utmost importance because those waves encounter those incoming from another electron or positron and produce the field of force shown above.

Then the field of force itself is amplified because of the same lens effect. As a result, and especially because more electrons in the vicinity truly act like stroboscopes, a very strong wave beam converges back towards electrons or positrons which caused them. I could check that such a convergent beam should produce an Airy disk, just like most convergent beams except apodized ones. One must also remember that the Airy disk is only the diffraction pattern at the focal plane. It is called the Fraunhofer diffraction whose distance is infinite for the laser, but the whole diffraction pattern anywhere else between the source and the Airy disk is called the Fresnel diffraction.

The pattern is different whether the source is plane or spherical. When two electrons come very close together, their standing waves may add constructively even in the area beyond them. Then they radiate an Airy disk exactly in their center. This transforms the whole system into a quark surrounded with a powerful gluonic field where forces involved are enormous and quite different. In addition, the phase in the center may be compatible with the positron's quadrature. So the resulting system is no longer negative: it becomes neutral. Then three quarks placed crosswise on the three Cartesian axes become a neutron, which may finally transforms into a proton if a positron is captured in the center.

The point is: the on-axis wave period explains how radiation pressure works. So this wave generator compatible with the electron will be very useful for searchers studying radiation pressure. But it should also be useful for displaying regular ripples on water in computer generated animations, and for a lot of other applications!

The program below displays outgoing waves with an artificial, really amazing 3-D effect:

Marcotte_Wave_Generator_3D.bas Marcotte_Wave_Generator_3D.exe

DISPLAYING OUTGOING CIRCULAR WAVES.

One can apply the same reasoning to the 2-D Circular Wave Generator, which phase offset in the center is only pi / 4. Using the Huygens principle, and also the Virtual Aether, Mr. Marcotte and I already showed that the 2-D central antinode exhibits a 3 / 4 lambda diameter.

So formulas are different. Firstly, the core correction threshold is pi / 2 instead of pi:

If x < pi / 2 Then x = x + (pi / 4) * (1 – (2 * x / pi)) ^ 2

Secondly, waves are expanded to an additional lambda / 8 position, not lambda / 4, and amplitude fades according to the square root of the distance. So Mr. Marcotte's formula must be modified this way:

y = sin(x + pi / 4 – t) / sqr(x)

I elaborated those formulas on Oct. 2, 2007. This program shows that they produce very smooth outgoing waves:

Circular_Wave_Generator.bas Circular_Wave_Generator.exe

According to the diagram below, the core amplitude is higher for 2-D circular standing waves, as it was also the case for spherical waves.

2-D circular standing waves, according to Huygens' Principle and the Virtual Aether.

The dotted line shows the approximate Gaussian distribution curve given by : y = pi ^ (–x ^ 2)

This bell-shaped curve is not really relevant here, but the comparison is interesting.


The core is capable of building up considerable pressure.

Amazing applications.

Spherical standing waves will be very useful in the future for a lot of applications. Up to now, scientists are definitely not aware that they can especially build up enormous pressures inside the central core.

In addition, microwaves emitted from the inner surface or a sphere produce a similar pattern. They can build up huge quantities of energy focused inside a very small spherical core. And this energy may be recycled if the sphere internal surface is metallic.

THE ACOUSTIC THERMONUCLEAR PLANT

The point is: this small core is the perfect place for thermonuclear fusion, because both heat and pressure are needed to transform hydrogen, deuterium and tritium into helium. Moreover, this little sphere stands far away from any solid matter, which otherwise would melt. The microwaves will produce heat, and also very strong magnetic and electric fields inside the compressed plasma. Magnetic fields correctly applied facilitate fusion because hydrogen unpaired electron and proton behave like small magnets. For example, such fields are present on the sun surface, especially around sunspots.

This central sphere will simply become a little sun, constantly producing heat, hence electricity. It will work!

Both the acoustic and electronic (microwave) systems can coexist and achieve the very high pressure and heat requirements. Russia experimented in 1961 a 57 megaton hydrogen bomb which detonator was a plutonium bomb. This is unthinkable for producing electricity. The goal is to safely obtain the fusion temperature and pressure point. Tritium for example is a dangerous substance which must be severely controlled. In addition, the fusion process produces neutrons which make matter in the vicinity become radioactive.

The moon surface contains huge quantities of helium-3, whose fusion produces safer protons, but needs higher temperature. It also may directly transform energy into electricity because protons are positive.

The most recent project in Cadarache, France, uses very strong magnetic fields in order to facilitate the fusion process and to isolate the plasma from any solid matter. But it still needs very high pressure and temperature, and so adding the standing wave method to the process appears quite relevant and reasonable.

The magic formula.

The pressure diagram is the same as that of the electron. The whole reactor would look like artificial electron, and so Mr. Marcotte's formula is still relevant. The larger the sphere, the higher the pressure. Additionally, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the pressure too:

y = sin(x) / x



The fifth (green) spherical layer is 5 wavelength distant to the center.

The core pressure is: 5 * 2 * pi = 31 times higher than in this layer.

A doubled frequency would double the pressure for the same distance.

A doubled distance would also double the pressure for the same frequency.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | You are here. | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

The x variable is given by: 2 * pi * distance / lambda, and so the wavelength is important. On the other hand, a bigger core should produce more heat and energy. The core pressure is normalized to 1, but the goal is to obtain the required pressure for the fusion to become possible. The equation indicates which pressure should be applied on the inner side of the sphere.

Obviously, the amplitude is always positive for a compressed medium because vacuum is the lower limit. An asymmetry appears for very high amplitude levels. So, before proceeding, the hydrogen overall pressure should already be very high. The device also needs a chimney for collecting heat, and a system for recycling the hydrogen. The sphere can be replaced by an ellipsoid with two focus cores, producing a sort of "artificial quark" with high amplitude plane standing waves in-between. Then those standing waves may participate to the fusion process and greatly improve the device efficiency.

I presume that engineers will find a practical way to produce Huygens wavelets on the inner surface of the sphere. Technically, most of the energy produced by at least one thousand loudspeakers regularly spaced should be transferred to the central core. I could check this with my own computerized medium without any surprise, because it is simply the Huygens Principle.

A chain reaction.

It should be emphasized that a chain reaction and self-amplification occurs. The resulting heat causes additional reactions to take place, allowing the standing wave system to oscillate permanently.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update December 3, 2009.


THE DOPPLER EFFECT

The Doppler effect explains Relativity.

1 – THE REGULAR DOPPLER EFFECT

The emitter is moving and the observer is at rest.

Firstly, let us admit:

– All waves need a medium.

– The wave speed with respect to the medium is postulated to be constant and absolute, albeit this is true only for the aether.

– The phrase "at rest" stands for having no velocity with respect to the medium.

Beta.

The beta normalized velocity is the speed of the wave source (or observer) as compared to the wave speed. It is very useful in order to make things simpler. Below, v is for velocity and c is the speed of light, albeit c may also stand arbitrarily for the speed of sound.

Lorentz's contraction factor.

The contraction factor is given by: g = sqr(1 – beta ^ 2). Henri Poincare called this important, indeed capital phenomenon, "the aberration". The well known gamma factor is the reciprocal: gamma = 1 / g.

Apparently, this aberration was discovered by A. A. Michelson. Let us consider a plane constantly flying at 50% of the speed of sound, hence beta = .5 with respect to air. Then the wind speed has an additional effect on the plane with respect to the ground. It may severely modify its relative speed on a round trip flight. It turns out that planes flying across the wind are slowed down according to g. The mean speed in the direction of the wind on a go and return trip is even more severely reduced according to g squared. For more details, see the Michelson Interferometer.

However, the problem involving light waves and the aether was solved incorrectly by Michelson.

The point is that the normal Doppler effect involves a transverse wavelength contraction according to g and a longitudinal contraction according to g squared. Lorentz finally found that the emitter frequency should slow down according to g. On the one hand, this cancels the transverse contraction. On the other hand, it also reduces the longitudinal contraction from g squared to g.

In such a case, assuming that the Michelson interferometer undergoes a contraction according to g along the displacement axis x only, there is no speed or wavelength difference between the two light paths and the interferometer cannot reveal the aether wind any more.

So this contraction factor should not be underestimated. It is of the utmost importance.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_Doppler.htm

The unmoving axis joins the unmoving observer and the unmoving wave origin.

Let us take an example for beta = .5 and see how the Doppler effect modifies the sound waves.

1. The forward wavelength is: 1 – beta = .5 times shorter.

2. The backward wavelength is: 1 + beta = 1.5 times longer.

3. The forward frequency is: 1 / (1 – beta) = 2 times higher.

4. The backward frequency is: 1 / (1 + beta) = .6667 times lower.

5. The wavelength for a phi = 120° angle is: 1 – beta * cos 120° = 1.25 times longer.

6. The frequency for a phi = 120° angle is: 1 / (1 – beta * cos 120°) = .8 times lower.

7. The frequency and the wavelength remain unchanged along a transverse unmoving axis.

9. The beta velocity can be deduced from the forward wavelength: beta = 1 – .5 = .5

10. The beta velocity can be deduced from the backward wavelength: beta = 1.5 – 1 = .5

11. The forward vs. backward wavelength or frequency ratio is: R = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta) = 3

12. The beta velocity can be deduced from this ratio: (3 – 1) / (3 + 1) = .5

13. Lorentz's contraction factor is of no interest here: g = sqr(1 – .5 ^ 2) = .866

The observer may use a resonator or a more sophisticated device in order to measure the frequency. Because a plane reflector produces standing waves, he can also measure the wavelength by finding the first node position; this is called the Hertz test.

In this case, the observer obtains correct data because he is at rest.

This does not mean that an observer at rest always obtain correct data. Astronomers are aware that, even at theoretical rest, a telescope cannot produce an exact image of both Mars and Jupiter. The results must still be interpreted because the speed of light is not


2 – THE VIRTUAL DOPPLER EFFECT

The observer is moving and the emitter is at rest.

infinite. So, dealing in addition with the Doppler effect, one should be even more careful. A moving observer encounters phenomena which are definitely not well understood.

This explains why Relativity is not well understood either. My experience with so many readers since over six years is that they never accept to sit down and examine the problem carefully. It is all about laziness, and it is a shame because the calculus is simple. It never needs sophisticated equations.

The Voigt transformations.

One can use Woldemar Voigt's transformations (1887) in order to reproduce the normal Doppler effect because his equation set can reproduce any Doppler effect including the Lorentz transformations. Below is a reproduction of Poincaré's version of the Voigt transformations in his book "La mécanique nouvelle" (New Mechanics). They are the equivalent of Lorentz's ones and they where intended to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations:

This is Poincaré's version of Voigt's equations.

k stands for gamma = 1 / g, epsilon for beta and l for Voigt's constant.

One may reverse Voigt's equations like this for the computer in order to produce a Doppler effect instead of canceling it:

x' = x * g * k + t * beta

t' = t * g / k – x * beta

y' = y * k

y' = y * k

Woldemar Voigt's variable Doppler equations.

k stands for Voigt's constant, whose goal is to obtain a variable transverse and longitudinal contraction.

Voigt's constant k must equal Lorentz's factor g in order to obtain the normal g squared axial contraction: k * g = g ^ 2. This is the regular Doppler effect, which then can be reproduced using simpler equations (this is also the case for the Lorentz transformations where k = 1 can be simply removed).

x' = x * g ^ 2 + t * beta

t' = t – x * beta

y' = y * g

y' = y * g

Woldemar Voigt's equations for the regular Doppler effect.

This is not a joke. Voigt's equations for the regular Doppler effect work beautifully, and I am rather surprised that they are still ignored. x stands for wavelength and t stands for the wave period in radians (not space and time!). The program below shows that they even reproduce the emitter's displacement:

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.bas Doppler_Voigt_transformations.exe

There is no true Doppler effect because waves remain unchanged. The experimented observer is aware that his moving instruments cannot correctly record the frequency any more. However, if he already knows its original value, he can deduce his speed from it by means of formulas below.

The reception rate slows down if the observer is moving away from source. It rather accelerates if he is moving towards the source.


3 – THE RELATIVE DOPPLER EFFECT (not relativistic)

The emitter and the observer are moving together.

The axis, and especially the transverse one, is moving along with the emitter.

The on-axis relative Doppler effect is identical to the regular one.

I elaborated the first equation below for all-azimuth relative Doppler around 1998.

The second one yields the same results and was adapted from Mr. Ivanov's web site.

Transverse waves are tilted to an angle from axis: theta = arc sin beta.

Transverse waves (or transverse standing waves) contract according to g.

On-axis standing waves are more severely contracted according to g squared.

The virtual apparent frequency is given by:

The observer is moving towards the source: f ' = f (1 + beta)

The observer is moving away from the source: f ' = f (1 – beta)

The observer is moving according to a phi angle (all azimuth): f ' = f (1 – beta cos phi)

Let us take an example for beta = .5 and see how the virtual Doppler effect seems to modify the frequency, which actually remains unchanged.

1. The frequency while moving towards the source seems to be 1 + beta = 1.5 times higher.

2. The frequency while moving away from the source seems to be 1 – beta = .5 time lower.

3. The frequency for a phi = 120° angle seems to be: 1 – beta cos 120° = 1.25 times higher.

Obviously, there are no wavelength equations because it also remains unchanged. In addition, a moving observer cannot measure the wavelength correctly by means of the Hertz test because the standing wave contraction.

Please note that the Hertz test doesn't yield the correct wavelength here because the reflector is moving. Reflected waves are compressed or dilated two times in cascade and a standing wave compression or dilation occurs. So, if the observer knows the original wavelength, he can deduce his speed from the Hertz test. This also works for the relative Doppler effect below, which in this case always causes a longitudinal standing wave compression according to g squared, and a transverse compression according to g.

But this absolutely does not work for the Lorentz "relativistic" Doppler effect (scroll down) because the apparatus compression (Lorentz's on-axis matter compression according to g) matches exactly the standing wave compression and the frequency reduction: g ^ 2 / g = g. So the observer cannot deduce his speed through the aether by means of the Hertz test any more. The Michelson interferometer does not work either for the same reason.


The important point is that the wavelength here is an artificial one because waves actually propagate from their origin, not from the emitter's new position.

Surprisingly, the received frequency is the absolute one: f '' = f whatever the angle. However, the observer should be aware that this happens because he is moving along with the emitter. The sound waves are truly undergoing the Doppler effect, but he cannot detect the frequency change any more because the virtual one cancels the regular one.

Let us suppose that beta is .5 and that the observer is placed in front of the emitter. Firstly, the forward true frequency is f ' = f / (1 – beta) = 2 times higher. But the observer is moving away from the place where the sound waves were emitted. So, according to the virtual Doppler effect, he records this truly higher frequency according to f '' = f ' (1 – beta) = .5 time lower. The recorded frequency finally remains unchanged.

The equation for this is: f '' = f (1 – beta cos phi) / (1 – beta cos phi), hence f '' = f.

This was discovered by Christian Doppler himself in 1842.

Johann Christian Doppler (1803-1853)

The relative but not relativistic Doppler effect applies to any emitting device whose frequency does not slow down according to Lorentz. For example, light emitted by a very distant and fast galaxy does not behave this way because it is submitted to the Lorentz transformations (see the Lorentz Doppler effect below). But the sound emitted by the ambulance siren does, as long as the observer is moving at the same speed and in the same direction. Please note that, for calculation purpose, the transverse axis where x = 0 follows the source. This is Galileo's Relativity Principle.

It should be emphasized that the Hertz test still reveals standing waves, hence moving nodes and antinodes. This is possible because the wave relative speed is no longer the same forward and backward. Surprisingly, the wavelength given by the Hertz test will reveal a contraction, which occurs on all x, y and z Cartesian axes. It is given by Lorentz's g factor on a transverse y or z axis and by g squared on the displacement x axis. Michelson was unaware of standing wave contraction, but the contraction ratio is nevertheless consistent with is calculus.

Standing waves motion and contraction.

As far as I know, "moving" standing waves were discovered by Mr. Yuri Ivanov. He called them "lively standing waves". He also discovered that a transverse contraction according to g and an on-axis contraction according to g squared occur. He finally used this to explain matter contraction. This was indeed a giant step in physics.

Unfortunately, the "Ivanov transformations" are too severe as compared to the correct Lorentz ones. Even worse, his web site about "rythmodynamics", spider-effect and levitation is rather weird.


4 – THE LORENTZ DOPPLER EFFECT

formerly RELATIVISTIC

The electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor g.

The electron frequency slows down according to g.

This produces a very special Doppler effect.

It transforms matter in such a way that the observer's speed becomes unnoticeable.

This, and only this, explains Relativity.

This very special Doppler effect is well known, albeit it has been severely misinterpreted and underestimated. It is most often called "relativistic". However, it was discovered by Lorentz, who deserves to have it named after him. In addition, it definitely cannot be called "relativistic" because it is rather absolute: the electron really behaves like this as a result of its true and absolute speed through the aether. So let us call it the Lorentz Doppler effect.

All azimuth Lorentz's Doppler.

On-axis wavelength contraction forward.

On-axis wavelength dilation backward.

The electron frequency slows down according to g. There is no transverse wavelength contraction any more: lambda' = lambda. This alone explains the Lorentz transformations and Relativity. So let me introduce the "formula of the century":

f ' = g f

Lorentz discovered matter contraction, but he also very clearly stated that matter should not contract on transverse y and z axes. In addition, he strongly believed that there was an aether and he was well aware that the light waves should undergo this special Doppler effect involving no transverse contraction. Finally, the only useful information to be remembered from his famous transformations is the constant transverse length or wavelength:

y' = y z' = z

As a result of the normal Doppler effect, waves are more contracted forward than they are dilated backward. But here the forward contraction is always the reciprocal of the backward dilation. This leads to Lorentz's Relativity.

For example, a 1000 Hz loudspeaker moving at 60% of the speed of sound (beta = .6; g = .8) produces the regular asymmetric Doppler effect:

Regular Doppler forward frequency: 1000 / (1 – .6) = 2500 Hz

Regular Doppler backward frequency: 1000 / (1 + .6) = 625 Hz


A perfect symmetry.

However, a 1000 MHz antenna at rest will rather emit at 800 MHz while moving at 60% of the speed of light in accordance with Lorentz's g factor. This will produce a very special Doppler effect:

Lorentz "relativistic" Doppler forward: .8 * 1000 / (1 – .6) = 2000 MHz

Lorentz "relativistic" Doppler backward: .8 * 1000 / (1 + .6) = 500 MHz

As compared to the antenna at rest, the forward frequency will be 2000 MHz, two times higher, while the backward frequency will be two times slower: 500 MHz. A unique wavelength or frequency ratio appears (R = 2 here) for either backward (redshift) or forward (blueshift) waves. The forward ratio is the reciprocal of the backward one, so ratios smaller then 1 can be converted to 1 / R in order to normalize R > 1.

For example, a distant galaxy whose speed is 90% of the speed of light (beta = .9 and g = .4359) exhibits a redshift ratio R = 4.359 which is incompatible with the regular 1+beta Doppler because the maximum possible should be 2. This indicates that the emitted frequency really slows down according to Lorentz's predictions.

This calculus would be perfectly true only if our galaxy was at rest with respect to the aether. But it still works because the law of Relativity indicates that all seems to happen as if the observer was truly at rest.

In my opinion, astronomers and astrophysicists should admit that the formula beta = 1–2/(R^2+1) shown above is consistent with Lorentz's point of view. They should also admit that fast moving galaxies are (or seem) more and more compressed, and this includes distances between them. So, if Lorenz was right, there is a sort of "time wall" over there: beyond that point, no matter could exist because it would be faster than the speed of light. So the Hubble constant should also be tempered according to g.

In brief, the universe would be finite. The "time wall" would stand very near to where our biggest telescopes can already see. As a matter of fact, the Hubble telescope could see very distant and fast moving galaxies. However, this does not appear likely. I am of an opinion that the aether itself could rather expand. Then distant galaxies would still be immobile with respect to the aether locally and the Lorentz transformations would not apply. Finally, just the expansion of the universe could totally explain the unusual Doppler effect; but this would also indicate that such galaxies are truly faster than the speed of light with respect to our galaxy.

The Lorentz transformations are just a Doppler effect.

This can easily be demonstrated because Lorentz borrowed his equations from Woldemar Voigt, whose goal in 1887 was to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations. In addition, I could reverse Lorentz's equations, and the result is a set which produces a Doppler effect instead of canceling it:

Lorentz's Doppler equations.

The first equation needs further explanation. Firstly, swapping x and x' variables cancels the Doppler effect instead of producing it:

x = g * x' + beta * t

Extracting x' variable:

x' = (x – beta * t� / g

Also, g =sqr(1 – beta ^ 2):

x' = (x – beta * t� / sqr(1 – beta ^ 2)


Here, t and t' stand for seconds or wave periods. However this equation uses wavelength or light-second units for x and x'. Beta and x can be converted into any other speed or distance units, and the final result is Lorentz's original equation:

x' = (x – v t� / sqr(1 – (v / c) ^ 2)

Reciprocity.

It turns out that the Lorentz transformations are just a Doppler effect. Nothing else. Nothing more. Henri Poincare discovered that Lorentz's equations could be reversed in a very unusual way, just using the plus sign instead of the minus sign, actually the same way as Descartes did for Galileo's Relativity principle.

Galileo: x' = x + v t

Reversed: x = x' – v t

Poincare: x' = gamma * (x + beta * t)

Reversed: x = gamma * (x' – beta * t')

Mathematically, x should rather be recovered like this, using t instead of t':

x = x' / gamma – beta * t

Surprisingly, the symmetric equations can either produce or correct the Doppler effect. Poincare had discovered Relativity and he was the first person to use this word, well before Einstein. However, his equations only show that a moving observer will be fooled. One cannot freely use two different space or time units without any preference because facts are absolute. Facts are not what they look like, they are what they are.

The program Ether17.exe (source code Ether17.bas) reproduces the Lorentz Doppler effect using solely Lorentz's equations. And this especially applies to the electron, simply because its frequency slows down according to g.

This is a flawless demonstration. So there is no space-time transformation, just a Doppler transformation involving a wave position according to x' and a wave phase according to t'.

The program below is even more explicit because one can test up to four different constants.


Matter contraction.

It is a well known fact that the electron is responsible for molecule binding, and that it behaves in accordance with a given wavelength.

The point is: the electron is submitted to Lorentz's Doppler effect. Because Relativity has been demonstrated hundreds of times, the moving electron must undergo a Doppler effect and transform the way Lorentz predicted. So matter must contract on the Cartesian x axis, but not on transverse y and z axes. Exactly the way the electron standing waves do.

Relativity.

The consequence of this is that a moving observer becomes unable to determine whether he is moving or not. Because of Lorentz's Doppler perfect symmetry, and because he himself is transformed, he will rather think that an emitter at rest is moving.

This reproduces Galileo's Relativity Principle. It is absolutely amazing.

It must be emphasized that the moving observer is wrong. Only the observer at rest is right. The stunning reciprocity between their calculations proves that Relativity is true, but there is no true reciprocity.

This also proves that Relativity is compatible with the existence of the aether.

Active and reactive mass.

Lorentz also discovered that mass should increase in accordance with the gamma factor. One can easily prove that the Doppler effect is responsible for this. The Lorentz Doppler effect is involved here, so the electron slower frequency according to g must be taken into account. A slower frequency means less energy, but in spite of that the overall result will rather be a mass/energy gain.

The mass is divided into two parts. The part moving forward is active and the backward one is reactive. Firstly, they both are reduced according to g. Secondly, they are transformed according to the Doppler effect.


The Lorentz transformations are directly linked to the electron Doppler effect.


The action and reaction law is just a consequence of the Lorentz Doppler effect.

Let us take an example for beta = .866; g = .5; gamma = 2; m = 1. The results are undisputable. The sum a + r is consistent with Lorentz's predictions, which have been thoroughly verified nowadays.

Active mass: a = 1.866 kg Reactive mass: r = .134 kg.

Total mass M = a + r = gamma * m

M = 1.866 + .134 = 2 kg.

The action and reaction law.

In addition, active and reactive mass is responsible for action and reaction. A billiard ball can push another one simply because its waves undergo the Doppler effect. It turns out that the mass gain is pure kinetic energy.

E = (a + r – m) c 2 = (gamma * m – m) c 2

The Time Scanner.

In March 2004, I invented a stunning device which I called the Time Scanner.

On the one hand, it can reproduce the electron unusual Doppler effect involving a slower frequency. On the second hand, it can perform multiple Lorentz transformations in a single step!


The Time Scanner produces a contraction, a time dilation and a time shift.

Scanning in the opposite direction rather cancels those effects: the Reciprocity works here too.

Here, a system at rest (on the left) is accelerated to .866 c.

This is how a rotating wheel and its different gear systems would look like.

Lorentz's equations cannot handle so many transformations simultaneously.

Einstein's Relativity leads to many paradoxes, not to say contradictions.

On the contrary, the Time Scanner is highly versatile, consistent and logical.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | You are here. | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere,





THE AETHER

"The material universe is purely made out of aether."

René Descartes (1596-1650).

"Dubium sapientiae initium".

Doubt is the origin of wisdom.

Aether, after the Greek mythology and according to Hesiod, was the son of Erebos (dark place in Underworld) and of Nyx (the Night). He was the personification of the clear upper air breathed by the Olympus Gods and Goddesses. Descartes realized that waves need a medium. He was convinced that light was made of waves and he wisely named the required medium éther after the Greek God. I am of an opinion that the English word should be spelled aether, not ether, in order to be respectful to Descartes' language. Please note that the acute accent replaces a second vowel. What is more, the Greek word aither also strongly suggests it.

This site does not explain how the aether works mechanically. Any medium capable of transmitting regular longitudinal waves could do the job. In order to keep things simple, one should postulate that the aether is perfectly homogeneous and that it preserves energy without any loss. Then it would transmit sinusoidal waves whose speed c is constant. It is the well known speed of light, but please remember that it is also that of matter waves and all invisible forces transmitted by aether waves.

So the aether is also the medium for electrons as spherical standing wave systems. Because such systems constantly radiate spherical waves, they need replenishment. This is why the aether should also have been filled with energetic waves since its very beginning.

Nobody is entitled to think that the aether does not exist.

The true mechanism for all physical phenomena is still totally unknown. Until it is well established, the wave hypothesis remains the most acceptable one.

The true nature of particles such as electrons, protons or neutrons is still a mystery. The very existence of hypothetic particles such as photons or neutrinos was never demonstrated. They were just highly attractive hypotheses. Thus they tend to evolve into certitude without any additional reasonable argument. Up to now, Descartes' explanation about the light remains the only acceptable one: it is made of waves and it behaves like waves propagating by means of a medium. Except for very rare misleading, misunderstood and oversimplified phenomena, the light does not behave like particles as far as its quantum properties are attributed to electrons.

Nobody ever reasonably explained how gravity works, either. So, until somebody furnishes an acceptable explanation, we must admit that we are dealing with the unknown. Forces such as gravity or light could very well work using just waves. Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". From a mechanical point of view, this is totally absurd.

Christiaan Huygens.

Descartes discovered that light is made of waves and that it should be carried by a medium. His pupil Christiaan Huygens described aether as "subtle air spheres in contact" in order to explain the way such waves are transmitted. Note that he immediately tried to find the mechanism! Unfortunately, such an attitude becomes more and more the exception nowadays.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_aether.htm

THE VIRTUAL AETHER

Descartes was right: the light is made of waves and it needs a medium. And Huygens was right: the aether needs a mechanism. This web site shows that the existence of the aether is highly plausible. It is especially compatible with Relativity.

Augustin Fresnel.

Augustin Fresnel thought that the light waves should vibrate transversally according to his observations on light polarization through Iceland Spath. Then he supposed that aether should be made of material points separated by intervals.

However, such transverse vibrations do not really occur. Light is made of regular longitudinal waves and the phases only vibrate transversally. Light waves are composite in nature so they can carry transverse phase patterns. The material points idea definitely remains the best one, though. Such a structure is the simplest possible and it nevertheless explains two important phenomena.

Firstly, our analysis of wave behavior through such points (we prefer "granules" because a point cannot exist) indicates that some anomalies should occur. For example, the wave speed slows down if the wavelength is very short. Just a few granules for a whole wavelength introduces a "quantum" effect.

Secondly, material points becoming more and more distant can explain the Universe expansion. In such a case, very fast and distant galaxies would still be at rest with respect to the aether points over there.

The program below shows that Mr. Anselme Dewavrin's algorithm, which is derived from Euler's method, does not yield exactly the same results as the accurate y = sin(2 * pi * x / lambda) procedure, especially when the discrete steps are insufficient as compared to the wavelength. It turns out that the so-called error in Euler's method is actually a true fact. The aether does produce this error, it is really made out of points or granules which transmit energy by discrete steps.

Aether01_Dewavrin.bas Aether01_Dewavrin.exe

Another example is the always positive medium, which cannot produce perfectly symmetrical sine waves for very high amplitude levels. The high amplitude (high compression) level is unlimited while the lower amplitude reaches a limit, which is the absence of granules inside a given space. I am quite sure that this anomaly explains very well the electron amplification because standing waves produce such an asymmetry.

So granules whose unique property is to repel one another is the perfect medium for aether waves. A similar model with both attractive and repulsive properties allowed Mr. Delmotte (see the Virtual Aether below) to elaborate a fantastic computerized medium. Six months later, Mr. Marcotte invented a different algorithm which is a bit simpler, and then a more complex but faster one.

Oscillations.

Clearly, waves exhibit oscillations much similar to those of a pendulum. Galileo discovered that such oscillations are synchronous, and this explains why the wave speed remains constant whatever the frequency or amplitude.

In November 2005, I simplified Mr. Delmotte's algorithm and applied it to the pendulum. The goal was to show that it should respect Hooke's law "Ut tensio sic vis", which means that the force exerted by a coiled spring, for example, must be directly proportional to its extension.

In October 2006 I found that a similar and strangely simple algorithm could produce a sine curve. It must be placed in a computer program loop:

inertia = inertia – energy

energy = energy + inertia / step

One must firstly establish the wavelength (lambda) in pixels, for example lambda = 100, in order to obtain at least one complete rotation. Then the energy exchange step is given by:

step = (lambda / (2 * pi)) ^ 2

The Virtual Aether.

Mr. Philippe Delmotte invented the Virtual Aether in June 2005. His starting point was the Verlet algorithm, but he added Newton's laws for inertia and energy. This algorithm can produce some sort of "heat", a local vibration of granules.

Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte invented his own algorithm, which is totally different, in January 2006. For example, if the energy exchange step is complete, it does not produce heat.

Mr. Paul Falstad uses Java Applets. His algorithm appears to be more complicated. He informed me that he found it on the Internet and that he couldn't say who invented it.

http://www.falstad.com/ripple/

Mr. Philippe Delmotte is working on the English version of his program, which I will put on this site to download. However, you can make virtual "ripples on a pond" right now using my own programs. They are fantastic!

Aether08.bas Aether08.exe


WaveMechanics05.bas WaveMechanics05.exe

I dare say that this virtual medium is promised to a fantastic future. Because waves are becoming important, such programs will be progressively upgraded and they will be a must for all students in the world. I could already check a lot of wave phenomena, especially in a moving frame of reference; this greatly helps for studying Relativity.

For instance, Lorentz explained ten years before Einstein that the Michelson interferometer could not reveal the aether wind because it contracts.

The point is that the 45° transparent mirror (the beam splitter) should also undergo a contraction, making the reflecting surface angle different. According to standard rules in optics, the beam would not be reflected to a 90° angle any more. Many scientists argued that the interferometer contraction was impossible. Poincaré especially spoke about an "ad hoc" explanation without any valid reason and finally, Lorentz's hypothesis was ruled out. It was a huge mistake. Matter contraction really occurs in such a way that any observer moving along with a wave system can no longer detect its motion. All seems to happen as if he was at rest. This is Relativity.

Stunning Videos.

In October 2007, I made several DivX MPEG-4 videos. They show clearly that the mirror must be tilted to an additional angle in order to reflect the light beam to the correct 90° angle. I made one for all axes and directions, and also with the incorrect 45° angle. It turns out that the new angle is consistent with Lorenz's contraction factor. So the interferometer must contract: there is no other logical explanation.

Lorentz was right. It is that simple. Matter contraction was not obvious in 1895 but it is now easily foreseeable on condition that matter is made of waves. Clearly, all wave phenomena are submitted to the Doppler effect.

As far as I know, the light beam behavior inside the moving apparatus has never been displayed. In my opinion, this experience is even more important than Michelson's. Thanks to Mr. Philippe Delmotte's Virtual Aether, it is now possible. Many scientists don't even know that the light beam waves must be tilted to the theta angle = arc sin (v / c) in order to propagate transversally. Moreover, the light beam itself and Fresnel's diffraction pattern also undergo the on-axis contraction.

Here are the Videos:

Michelson_axial_forward_51_angle.avi


Michelson_axial_backward_51_angle.avi


Michelson_orthogonal_forward_51_angle.avi


Michelson_orthogonal_backward_51_angle.avi


Michelson_orthogonal_unmoving_45_angle.avi

I also made more videos showing how the Doppler effect transforms most common wave phenomena. I used the Lorentz transformations (see Oct. 15 below), which produce a slower frequency, hence no transverse wavelength contraction.

Doppler_Lorentz_two_sources.avi

Doppler_Lorentz_2D_Airy_disk.avi


Doppler_Lorentz_2D_axial_Fresnel_diffraction.avi

Doppler_Lorentz_2D_transverse_Fresnel_diffraction.avi

Believe me, this is even more important than Michelson's results in order to explain Relativity. The Virtual Aether is a true laboratory where a lot of decisive experiences can be conducted.

Now everybody knows what is really going on. No more absurd explanations. Just facts.

Dewavrin's algorithm.

In October 2006, M. Anselme Dewavrin derived the algorithm below from Euler's method. This algorithm was almost identical to mine:

sine = sine + cosine * 2 * pi / lambda

cosine = cosine – sine * 2 * pi / lambda

Energy and inertia are replaced by sine and cosine. This amazingly simple calculus placed in a computer loop indeed allows one to


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | You are here. | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

obtain a sinusoidal curve, the same one which could be obtained using Euler's method. Here is a program showing this:

Aether01_Dewavrin.bas Aether01_Dewavrin.exe

Surprisingly, Newton's laws involving energy and inertia produce the same results as Euler's method, which is purely mathematical. Because Mr. Delmottes virtual medium can use both of them without any difference, and because Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's algorithm also produces exactly the same anomaly, it turns out that the results are highly reliable.

A quantum effect.

Euler's method is an approximation: it introduces some degree of error which is greater when the step is important as compared to the wavelength. The program above shows that the shorter the wavelength, the more unstable the curve.

Actually, this so-called error appears to be a true fact: genuine waves really behave like that. Each aether granule transmits energy step by step. This discrete procedure introduces quantum properties.

On the one hand, the result is a slower wave if the wavelength is rather small with respect to the number of granules involved. On the other hand, standing waves produce a local granule concentration, where the wave speed is greater. Then all aether waves crossing such concentrated areas must undergo a lens effect.

More electron properties unveiled.

This anomaly fully explains why the electron frequency reaches a limit. It is the highest possible, and finally all electrons oscillate on the same very high frequency.

It also explains the lens effect inside its standing wave nodes and antinodes, hence its amplification by constant surrounding aether waves incoming from all directions.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update November 1st., 2007.


THE MICHELSON INTERFEROMETER

Michelson's goal was to detect the phase shift shown on the left.

However, there is no phase shift because the interferometer contracts.

A GREAT IDEA

The Michelson interferometer works like a race between two planes.

In 1887, Albert A. Michelson tried to detect the speed of the Earth through the aether by means of an interferometer. But his apparatus revealed nothing. It was a "failure".

Actually, this experiment led to a fantastic scientific discovery: the Lorentz transformations and the theory of Relativity.

A race between two planes.

Michelson explained to his children that his interferometer reproduces a race on a river between two swimmers. In 1887 planes did not exist. Otherwise, he would certainly have spoken about a plane race while a strong wind is blowing.

Let us consider two identical airplanes whose constant speed is 100 mph and suppose that the wind is blowing at 50 mph. Then the beta normalized speed is given by v / c = 50 / 100 = .5. According to the rules, both pilots must perform a round trip between two points 100 miles apart.

The first pilot prefers to fly in the direction of the wind. But the second one chooses the transverse route and surprisingly, he easily wins the race.

The point is that those planes behave exactly like the light waves. It is all about the Doppler effect. Their speed may be compared to the speed of light, and one may consider that there is an aether wind because the emitter is moving.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm

Let's make it simple.

The relative speed on a go and return trip is given by Lorentz's contraction factor g, which is the reciprocal of the gamma factor. In this example, beta = .5 and g = .866:

Then the relative speed on a round trip is:

Along the wind : g2 c g2 = .75 c 75 mph

Across the wind : g c g = .866 c 86.6 mph

Across the wind, planes (or waves) will be tilted to 30° according to the theta angle:

theta = arc sin (beta)

In the absence of wind, the round trip would last 2 hours whatever the direction. However, in the presence of wind, the duration increases more severely in the direction of the wind according to g squared instead of g in the transverse direction.

1 - The round-trip duration along the wind: 2 hours / g2 = 2.6667 hours.

2 - The round-trip duration across the wind : 2 hours / g = 2.3094 hours.

So the plane flying across the wind will be: .357 hour = 21 minutes faster and the plane flying along the wind will be defeated.

However, George F. FitzGerald and Hendrick Lorentz noted after Michelson's experiment that a shorter circuit on the displacement axis would cancel the difference. On condition that there is no transverse contraction, the interferometer must contract in accordance with Lorentz's contraction factor. This is only one of the Lorentz transformations because there is also a time effect:

The Lorentz transformations.

This equation set was simplified by Henri Poincaré thanks to beta and g.

Please note that x stands for distance to origin in the contracted moving frame of reference.

So it is smaller than x'. This was almost never pointed out.

The Michelson transformations.

Prior to the Lorentz transformations, Michelson discovered a mechanical property of waves when they are observed in a moving frame of reference. This could be called the Michelson transformations but it is more simply the regular Doppler effect. A wavelength contraction according to g occurs on both transverse y and z axes, but a more severe one according to g squared can be observed along the motion x axis.

x' = (x – beta * t) / g 2

y' = y / g z' = z / g

t' = t + beta * x

According to our example, planes flying inside such an x, y and z contracted space would always perform the round trip in two hours whatever the speed of the wind or its direction. This explains why no abnormal time effect occurs.

So the main difference here is the time effect because both points of view lead to a null result.

Galileo's transformation.

Galileo's transformation is more simply a uniform translation motion. There is no transverse contraction and the time is the same everywhere.


The Michelson interferometer.

x' = x – beta * t

y' = y z' = z

t' = t

Here too, x is the coordinate in the moving frame of reference. Thus: x = x' + beta * t.

This was Galileo's point of view. However, according to Descartes, the x position should definitely refer to the Cartesian frame of reference, which is postulated to be at rest. After a given t time, because the rightward motion is a well admitted convention, this procedure creates an artificial secondary moving frame of reference. As a matter of fact, according to Descartes, the light propagates by means of the aether, which is postulated to be at rest. So the aether is not only a preferred frame of reference, it is the only admissible Cartesian frame of reference. This should lead to this inversion: x' = x + beta * t.

But let us be honest: inside the moving frame of reference, the light traveling forward clearly propagates slower and the Doppler effect should be considered. The equation works for moving objects to a first approximation, but what if matter is made of waves?

One should bear in mind that Galileo's transformation is wrong because matter actually transforms according to the Lorentz transformations. Matter especially cannot reach the speed of light for this reason.

A race between two waves.

Michelson noticed that the relative speed of light on a go and return trip is slower in the direction of motion. He realized that two orthogonal light beams could not produce the same interference fringes after a 90° rotation. He deduced from this that an interferometer could detect the speed of the aether wind.

Here is a diagram showing Michelson's apparatus:

Only one half of the light beam emitted by the source is reflected by means of a beam splitter containing a 45° partially reflecting mirror. Then the beams are reflected on a flat mirror back to the beam splitter, which then reunifies them.

Finally, both beams could be compared in a special scope. Michelson was expecting a phase shift. Waves would add themselves constructively or destructively, showing a characteristic interference pattern. The goal was to measure the fringes displacement after a 90° rotation. Such a rotation could be performed easily without any stress because the instrument was mounted on a large stone floating on a mercury pond. The temperature was also severely controlled.

The Michelson interferometer animated diagrams.

The animations below show what is going on inside the interferometer branches. I had to use a very high speed in order to obtain a clearly visible phase shift: one third of the speed of light. Then beta = .3333 and g = .9428. Such a speed produces a 2 : 1 wavelength ratio R along the displacement axis, according to:

R = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta)

This ratio indicates that on-axis planes crossing the starting point each minute, one at a time, would be two times nearer while flying against the wind.

So one can imagine that each small red or green line shown below represents a plane. The aether wind blows from the right.

The diagram on the left displays exactly the same length for both branches. This distance was calculated to obtain a full lambda / 2 phase shift. The wave fronts (or planes) along the motion axis are pictured in red and they are green crosswise.


Michelson was expecting the phase shift shown on the left:

The diagram on the right shows what really occurred. One of the branches (the horizontal one here) underwent a contraction according to Lorentz's contraction factor. In this example, it contracts to 94.28 % of its original length.

The speed difference was cancelled and the wave fronts were still perfectly in phase after a 90° rotation.

This explains why the Michelson interferometer cannot reveal the aether wind.

A new fact in science history:

STANDING WAVE CONTRACTION

This web site shows that aether exists and that matter is made purely out of spherical standing waves. Because moving standing waves undergo a contraction, moving matter should also undergo a contraction. Lorentz was unaware of this. It is a new fact. Now one can explain why the Michelson interferometer contracts.

I will especially quote this page from Poincaré's book Electricity and Optics (1901):

Poincaré is discussing Lorentz's opinion that matter should contract. In his picture, this "strange property" is unthinkable because it would seem some sort of "coup de pouce" (helpful hand) from Nature in order to hide the way optical phenomena really work. He very severely rejects this hypothesis without any valid reason. He says that Lorentz's theory is near to be correct, but that it still needs some


The contraction cancels the relative speed difference.

The Doppler effect.

adjustments. He finally proposes that optical phenomena should only depend on the relative motion of sources, apparatus, etc.

Let us be perfectly clear: Poincaré is definitely wrong here because Lorentz's theory fully explains Relativity. Today, we are aware that matter exhibits wave properties and that waves undergo the Lorentz transformations. So the contraction is not a "helpful hand" any more. It is rather an additional proof that Lorentz was right.

It should be emphasized that Albert Einstein could read French and that he surely read this book. In all cases, his 1905 first edition about Relativity was nothing but a "copy and paste" of Poincaré's ideas. It is easily verifiable, and it is a shame that it is still ignored today. Personally, I think that this is rather funny because they were both wrong. So, who cares?

Michelson and Lorentz strongly believed that aether should exist. So this page certainly matches their thoughts. However, this is not what scientists believe today, because they wrongly ruled out the aether.

So this page does not submit to standard opinion, albeit it is consistent with Lorentz's 1904 book. The science world is rapidly evolving today because of the Internet. People familiar with Lorentz's researches generally admit a privileged frame of reference, which in most cases coincides with aether. Some of them prefer the word "space", but this is obviously a compromise because aether is a suspicious subject nowadays.

Only people well aware of Lorentz's ideas can speak about Relativity, because it is the result of the Lorentz transformations. Others should be less affirmative because they ignore how Relativity was discovered.

Lorentz's was right.

Most web pages on the Michelson interferometer explain that the null result showed that aether does not exist. This is totally false.

Lorentz explained that the interferometer undergoes a contraction in the direction of motion. The first of Lorentz's three transformations is a length contraction, which occurs only on the x axis.

For example, let us suppose a very high speed: 86.6% of the speed of light. Then beta = .866 and Lorentz's contraction factor is .5. The gamma factor equals the reciprocal: 1 / g = 2.

The following animated diagram shows that the round-trip duration along any of the 4 possible paths inside the interferometer's arms would be the same. This device can be seen as a 4 branch interferometer. Here, the very high speed involves a severe contraction to half of the original length, and the speed difference becomes clearly visible:


For the same reason, any observer placed in the system's center O and using a radar signal would find by timing the echoes that all A, B, C and D distances are the same.

However, he would not notice that the four radar echoes are two times longer because his clock also runs two times slower according to the gamma factor.

Because all forces are transmitted by means of waves, which undergo the Doppler effect, all matter mechanisms are also slowed down in the same way. All happens with a slower rate of time. Most often, one speaks about time dilation. This is incorrect. Time is a concept, an idea; it does not really exist. But a clock does exist, and it can tick slower. This does not mean that time runs slower.

Secondly, waves (or planes) would reach the A point in the rear much more rapidly. Because of the Doppler effect, the B point will be attained later. Henri Poincare showed how, inside such a system, the central O observer must use light or radio signals in order to synchronize A and B clocks. Because the signal speed is much faster backward, A will be in advance and B will be late. However, nobody would be able to notice the resulting time shift. Inside such a moving frame of reference, Poincare showed that such local hourslead to a sort of virtual simultaneity. One cannot detect his actual speed any more. All happens as if the system was perfectly at rest inside aether.

In addition, waves propagating forward contract according to 1 – beta while those moving backward expand according to 1 + beta.The backward wavelength expansion ranges only from 1 to 2 while waves can be infinitely compressed forward. It turns out that the wave compression is much more severe; it increases matter's energy according to the gamma factor. So matter's mass/energy is doubled for .866 c and this was also discovered by Lorentz. As a matter of fact, this phenomenon could be regarded as Lorentz's fourth transformation:

1 – Distances along the displacement axis contract.

2 – All phenomena occur with a slower rate of time.

3 – A time shift appears between the front and the rear.

4 – Matter is gaining in mass and the mass gain becomes kinetic energy.

This was the secret: matter is made of waves. 100 years were needed to solve this mystery. It was obvious, though, because Lorentz's equations are almost a copy of the Woldemar Voigt's ones on the Doppler effect (1887). Actually, the only difference was an unknown constant whose k = 1 value was finally discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré in 1904. It is that simple: matter behaves like waves.

Standing wave contraction.

Very few people noticed that because light waves are reflected back on the interferometer's mirrors, standing waves appear inside both of its branches. Moreover, in 1904, standing waves compression was not a well known phenomenon. As far as I know it has been discovered by Mr. Yuri Ivanov, and only me and Mr. Serge Cabala seem to have studied it in an acceptable manner. For more details about moving standing waves (Ivanov's "lively standing waves") see standing waves.

So, in the animation, I managed to add some reference marks along both branches in order to locate the nodes' position. It should be pointed out that such nodes are still present in the direction of motion, notwithstanding the fact that the wavelength is two times longer while the waves are traveling backward. This is possible because those waves also seem to travel two times faster. One needs a little concentration to observe this, but it finally becomes obvious.

The mean relative velocity of light in order to perform a complete round-trip can be calculated as shown above. Let's repeat that waves behave in exactly the same manner as planes in the presence of wind. So the compression rate is also given by g and g squared:

Relative on-axis mean wave velocity: v = c g 2

On-axis standing wave compression: lambda' = lambda * g 2

Relative transverse constant wave velocity: v = c g

Transverse standing wave compression: lambda' = lambda * g

Those results can also be established according to the "relative" Doppler effect. I elaborated the first equation below around 1998. It derives from the regular Doppler effect 1 – beta * cos phi, but the number one gradually transforms to g until phi reaches 90°.

The second formula yields the same results; I adapted it from Mr. Ivanov's web site.

It should be pointed out that these equations also indicate the relative wave velocity according to Michelson's calculus.

Using a 90° phi angle, one can easily note that transverse waves undergo a compression according to Lorentz's g factor. Because the relative transverse wave velocity is slowed down according to g, the time needed to perform the transverse go and return trip is also longer according to 1/g. The calculus for the on-axis whole round trip is a bit more complicated because the go and return trips are


STANDING WAVE CONTRACTION

beta = 0 g = 1 Standard standing waves. No contraction.

Mr. Yuri Ivanov's "Lively standing waves" showing nodes and antinodes motion and contraction.

beta = .5 g = .866 Same frequency, contraction to 75% according to g 2.

Here, the observer is at rest with respect to the wave medium.


Here, the observer is moving with the system's frame of reference.


THE LIGHT BEAM LENGTH

different, but one can use the simpler 1 – beta formula forward and 1 + beta backward.

Finally, the standing wave compression ratio equals the change in the relative velocity of light on a go and return trip. Both calculi yield the same results. Michelson preferred velocity and did not use the standing wave method, which is simpler though, especially for studying the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment. Actually, Kennedy and Thorndyke did not take the frequency reduction into account. The overall increased wavelength cancels the transverse contraction and reduces the on-axis contraction to g. So they were wrong.

The Michelson interferometer undergoes a length contraction in the direction of motion according to Lorentz's contraction factor.

The animated diagrams shown above indicate that for one third of the speed of light, the interferometer arm length must be about 4 wavelengths in order to obtain the phase opposition. This length must be greater for smaller speeds. So Michelson had to build a very large interferometer.

Michelson's calculus was rather complex because he considered the relative speed of light. One can more easily obtain the same length using the standing wave compression method. Theoretically, the calculus must take the slower frequency into account. So, in the absence of contraction, the formula for obtaining two beams in phase opposition using the computer should be:


THE KENNEDY-THORNDYKE EXPERIMENT WAS A MESS

A simpler interferometer.

According to the absolute wavelength at rest: L = lambda / 4 g (1 – g)

However, Michelson was unaware of the Lorentz transformations, hence the slower frequency. But surprisingly, his measurements for the yellow light wavelength would remain unchanged at any speed. Because the frequency does change, the formula above simplifies to:

L = lambda / 4 ( 1 – g )

Example.

Let us suppose a g = .9 contraction. Then beta = .4359 and 1 – g = .1. The formula yields 2.5 wavelengths, or 5 half-wavelengths. The plane mirror produces standing waves and the distance between two nodes is one half of a wavelength. The goal is to make a node coincide with the nearest antinode. One may add that, from Michelson's point of view, moving the mirror only a quarter of a wavelength produces a full phase opposition because of the go and return trip. So only a quarter of a wavelength difference is needed:

If g = .9, the first phase opposition occurs for 5 half-wavelengths.

The worst of scenarios.

The speed of the sun through galaxies all around us has been estimated to be about 300 km/sec. It could be its absolute speed through the aether, but it could also be much faster. If beta is 300 / 300 000 = .001 the Lorentz contraction factor is .9999995 and the formula yields 500,000 wavelengths. So 500,000 times .0006 (yellow light) is 300 mm or 30 cm (about one foot). This suggests that a one foot tall interferometer should be enough in most cases.

However, Michelson preferred to play safe. The sun being perfectly at rest, which is highly improbable, the speed of the Earth would still be 29 km/sec (about 18 miles per second). So he preferred a rather large interferometer according to the following values:

� beta = .0000966667

� g = .9999999953

� lambda = .0006 mm yellow light.

The formula indicates 1 / 4 (1 – g) = 53,419,000 times the wavelength. So the arm length should be 32,000 mm or 32 meters (105 feet) in order to detect the Earth's minimum 29 km/s speed through aether. Michelson added many mirrors in order to elongate the total light trip.

The arm length for the 1887 experiment was 11 meters (36 feet). This should have been enough because one does not really need a full half-wavelength phase shift. Edward W. Morley tried again in 1902 with a longer 32 meters (105 feet) interferometer and the null result was confirmed.

Believe it or not, the second arm is useless.

It can be omitted like this:

Planes can be identified, but waves must be compared because they are all identical. The comparison does not produce an immediate result and Michelson had to rotate the apparatus in order to observe the difference in the interference fringes. So the length for the shorter arm is optional because it is used only as a reference.

This is not what Kennedy and Thorndyke thought. They claimed that different lengths would reveal the aether wind in spite of the


LORENTZ'S ANGULAR ABERRATION

The 49° mirror angle still produces a 90° deviation.

contraction. So, because the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment still ended with a null result, scientists deduced from it that aether does not exist. This is weird: believe it or not, nobody could correctly calculate this in accordance with the Lorentz transformations!

It should be pointed out that the Lorentz transformations do not solely involve a contraction. The time equation also predicts that any periodic phenomenon should be slowed down in accordance with Lorentz's contraction factor. This means that the basic wavelengthbecomes longer. Then, whatever the shorter arm length, the correct length formula for the longer one remains:

L = lambda / 4 (1 – g)

Quite simply, because it is made of standing waves, matter must contract exactly the way its standing waves do. The consequence is that any length yields a null result. Today, scientists still think that the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment ruled out matter contraction.

Once again, this is totally false.

Clearly, Kennedy and Thorndyke were wrong.

Some authors noticed that the 45° angle for the beam splitter cannot be constant because of the Lorentz transformations. Any contraction would cause it to be tilted in accordance with: arc tan (1 / g). Then, because of the well known opticians' equal angle law, the beam could not be reflected along the orthogonal axis according to a 90° angle any more.

The truth is that this equal angle law is false inside a moving frame of reference. Lorentz himself discovered that a special "angular aberration" should occur. So he wrote to Michelson, who agreed and changed his calculus. Lorentz probably applied Huygens' Principle, which postulates that any wave can be seen as billions of "wavelets".

Huygens' Principle.

This web site does explain light by such wavelets, but this detail is not relevant here. However, one must admit that those wavelets should be spherical. Obviously, their center of curvature should remain at rest inside the aether.

Lorentz noticed that any abnormal deviation could invalidate Michelson's calculus. Some authors are misleading because they speak about Bradley's stellar aberration. This phenomenon occurs when the emitter and the receptor speed is not the same. The aberration is different here because the light source moves at the same speed.

One should observe carefully how those wavelets behave in the animation below. According to the Huygens Principle, they reinforce themselves along their common envelope, and this produces a wave front. The absolute speed is half of the speed of light: beta = 0.5 and g = .866. The mirror angle is increased to: arc tan (1 / g) = 49.1066° because of Lorentz's contraction, but surprisingly the wave front is still deviated according to a 90° angle. The Doppler effect accounts for Lorentz's 30° theta angle. This means that waves traveling crosswise are tilted according to this angle, the same way the planes studied above are.

Additionally, one can now experiment such phenomena in Philippe Delmotte's amazing Virtual Aether. Using my Ether19 program, I made several mpeg-4 videos showing how the light waves behave in the vicinity of the beam splitter:









On the right, the unchanged 45° mirror angle produces an incorrect reflection angle.

On the left, the contraction according to Lorentz works perfectly.

Note that upward transverse waves are tilted according to the theta angle like the planes shown above.

Moreover, the transverse light beam also contracts according to Lorentz.

Clearly, Lorentz was right!

LORENTZ WAS RIGHT


Michelson_orthogonal_unmoving_45_angle.avi

Those experiences are much better then Michelson's because one can truly see what is going on inside the interferometer. The Virtual Aether shows that Lorentz was right: the angle can no longer be 45° at high speed. But surprisingly an angular aberration occurs which maintains the light beam reflected to a 90° angle. It is absolutely amazing!

The Lorentz transformations are decidedly a fantastic phenomenon. They always prove to be correct.

A dramatic argument.

So the 45° aberration is no longer an objection. It is rather a spectacular confirmation.

On the one hand, the apparatus undergoes a contraction which cancels the waves' speed difference. On the other hand, the beam splitter angle is increased in order to deviate the light beam in the correct direction. Finally, waves arrive in the scope without any phase difference.

This explains the null result.

Many authors, even sometimes highly respectable and well known scientists, still think that Michelson's experience ruled out aether. Such people are "Panurge's sheep". They studied physics but just memorized and repeated what their professor said. They did not verify. They forgot Descartes' maxim: doubt is the origin of wisdom.

"Dubium sapientiae initium"

The interferometer really undergoes a contraction in the direction of motion. Lorentz's explanation was the right one, but nobody believed him. All scientists preferred Poincare's version and Einstein's special theory of Relativity, which predict the same effects but negate the absolute point of view.

This was an enormous mistake. There is a mechanical explanation for all phenomena. This includes gravity, light, magnetic and electrostatic fields, nuclear forces, etc. The absolute point of view is important because the goal is to explain what is really going on.

One must firstly postulate that aether exists and that matter really transforms according to its absolute speed the way Lorentz showed. Then the goal is to establish carefully how a moving observer sees

phenomena from his own frame of reference. The result is Lorentz's Relativity.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | You are here. | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Relativity is not complicated. It is not a mysterious theory any more. It is a law of nature. The next pages show that it can be deduced from elementary calculus, especially the Lorentz transformations and the Doppler effect.

The main difference from Einstein's concept is that any moving observer is wrong about his situation, while one at rest sees phenomena the way they really occur. The moving observer also thinks that he is at rest because he sees the observer at rest undergoing the Lorentz transformations. Finally, nobody can tell for sure who is really moving.

So the main difference is that the one at rest only is right.

Einstein postulates that they are both right. His Special Relativity cannot explain the difference between appearances and reality. So it is false.

Lorentz's Relativity can predict the same phenomena and it can also explain them. This is an important improvement. Starting from now, scientists can mechanically explain matter and all physical phenomena.

The aether thus should be rehabilitated. It was banished wrongfully, and it proves to be essential.

Matter transforms the way Lorentz explained.

This web site explains matter and all physical phenomena from a mechanical point of view. Our world is made of waves. It is no longer a theory which will be confirmed some day, it is a verifiable fact.

In any event, there is at the present time only one logical explanation:

� The Michelson interferometer really undergoes a contraction.

� This occurs because matter is made out of standing waves.

� The aether is essential in order to explain them and also forces such as light, gravity, magnetism, etc.

� This explains Relativity.

Gabriel LaFreniere,





THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS

This page was thoroughly updated in January and February 2011.

Relativity is not an unexplainable phenomenon.

Prior to examining it, however, one must understand all of the effects of the Lorentz transformations.

The Time Scanner proves to be very useful because it more effectively reproduces them.

Lorentz's original equation set.

By 1887, the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853 – 1928) was extremely concerned about Michelson's researches. Naturally, his goal was not to elaborate the theory of Relativity. He was just trying to explain why the Michelson interferometer failed to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through the Aether. FitzGerald had suggested that matter contraction might explain this unexpected result. In 1895, Lorentz found that any contraction or expansion of this apparatus according to his preliminary equations would end up with a null result. The only condition is that the light path along the displacement axis must be shorter than that of the transverse one. Then the transit time difference due to the Doppler effect is cancelled. In addition, Lorentz noticed that this would introduce some time effects.

Next, Lorentz had to determine the exact contraction value among a range of possibilities, considering that just one contraction value is compatible with the corresponding time effects. He also had to take into account a constant "aberration" ratio which was discovered by Michelson. It is a consequence of the Doppler effect.

In this page, this aberration is assimilated to Lorentz's contraction factor "g". Space contraction (matter contraction, actually) is among the basic principles of Relativity. But unfortunately, the gamma factor does not account for such a contraction, being larger than one. I am of an opinion that this anomaly is misleading. That is why I suggest replacing the gamma factor with Lorentz's contraction factor, which is the reciprocal: g = 1 / gamma. Its value is easily given if one adopts the beta normalized speed, which was established by Henri Poincare.

Lorentz and Henri Poincare worked together on this problem for ten years. They considered a moving electron and they tried out several contraction and time values in order to modify its electromagnetic fields in such a way that it would appear stationary. By 1901, Lorentz had already succeeded. In 1904, he finally released an equation set supporting his theory, albeit today's version shown below is somewhat different. In 1901, however, Poincare was already working on a Relativity principle. In 1901, in his book "Electricity and Optics", he pointed out that the absolute motion is impossible to detect. He also admits at that time that Lorentz had already found that Voigt's constant "l" should be equal to unity. In 1904, Poincare's theory was exposed in St-Louis, USA, and it was published in 1905.

It turns out that the "Lorentz Transformations" are more exactly a transposition of Poincare's 1905 equations.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_Lorentz.htm

The Lorentz Transformations.

The reversed equation set is preferable.

In the original set, the x and t variables refer to the moving electron. This is a rather unknown detail which should be carefully examined. Below is a text from Poincare's version of Relativity (1905).

Poincare says very clearly: "The Lorentz transformations replaces the actual moving electron by an ideal stationary electron". This means that he applies the x' variable to the stationary electron, which is totally confusing. Hence, I propose in this page a simpler reversed equation set where x and t represent more logically the stationary electron. As an additional benefit, those "transformed transformations" prove to be more easily understandable.

Maxwell's equations are irrelevant.

Most texts from Lorentz, Larmor and Poincare are available on the web. Unfortunately, they all make use of complex calculus related to Maxwell's equations. The problem is that very few people are capable of dealing with those electromagnetic concepts. For instance, authors of books on radio-electricity are well aware that experimental results are very often different from theoretical ones. As a matter of fact, Lorentz himself wrote in 1920 that less than 20 physicists in the world had a fairly good knowledge of Relativity. And nowadays, it is even worse.

The point is that Lorentz himself admitted that his equations were similar to Woldemar Voigt's ones, whose goal in 1887 was more simply to cancel the Doppler effect. I could check that those equations indeed produce this effect on sound waves, which definitely do not require Maxwell's equations. This is easily verifiable because one just needs to deal with sine and cosine functions, the results being displayable on the computer screen. For example, you may check this program, which analyses the effects of four different frequency shifts (press A, B, C or D) on the Doppler effect using Voigt's revisited equations.

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.bas

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.exe

You may also press any key from 0 to 9 in order to select the beta speed. Clearly, this is all about the Doppler effect, which is a quite simple phenomenon. It surely doesn't require some complicated calculi involving Maxwell's equations.

In short, the use of Maxwell's equations is a major and unnecessary obstacle. Frankly, it is best to stay away from them.

Lorentz's contraction factor g and Poincare's beta normalized speed.

I reiterate that the letter g will represent Lorentz's contraction factor, originally known as "the aberration". Its value is given by the reciprocal of the well known gamma factor, which should be avoided because its leads to some severe misunderstandings. The factor g replaces the bulky Sqr(1–(v^2/c^2)) which is present in Lorentz's equation set shown above. In addition, once again for the sake of simplicity, it is preferable to adopt Poincare's "beta" normalized speed, which is given by: v / c. In this case, one obtains c = 1 so that c squared remains 1 and may conveniently be removed from the equation set.

Thanks to those elementary adjustments, the Lorentz transformations become much simpler. They also become amazingly explicit, showing four transformations (hence the use of the plural). Two of them apply to space measures and two more apply to time measures.


The Lorentz transformations.

This is the reversed and revisited version.

If you still don't see the relationship with Lorentz's original equation set, the first move in order to retrieve them is to extract the x variable from the right side of the upper equation, like this:

x = (x ' – (beta * t)) / g

Now, the denominator is occupied by Lorentz's contraction factor g, which replaces Sqr(1–(v^2/c^2)). Secondly, v replaces beta so that Lorentz's v * t remains correct on condition that the v, x and x' variables are no longer normalized in light-second units but rather according to the MKS system.

x = x ' – (v * t) / g

And thirdly, the x variable should preferably refer to the unmoving system. That is why x and x' must be swapped. However, swapping the t and t' variables proves to be incorrect. There is no other way out: Voigt confused the t and t' variables. Lorentz and Poincare did not notice the error either because the t time is an arbitrary data which must be known before applying the transformations. Obviously, any arbitrary time seems to yield the correct values on paper. The error indeed remains hidden using only one x coordinates because the symmetry works. However, it does become well visible on a computer screen (as a distortion in the Doppler effect) when the transformations involve thousands of pixels and coordinates.

Below, x' is back on the left side and the equation is finally that of the original Lorentz transformations.

Lorentz's original, yet simplified equation.

It is equivalent to Poincare's equation, which rather uses the beta speed and the gamma factor.

x' = gamma * (x – beta * t)

The aether.

The Lorentz Transformations apply to waves as soon as motion is to be taken into account. It has be seen that Voigt's version is useful in order to show on a computer screen how any kind of waves should experience the Doppler effect. The author of the computer program must be fully aware that the pixel coordinates are equivalent to those of a Cartesian system of coordinates, which is postulated to be stationary with respect to the wave medium. There is no place here for a so-called Galilean frame of reference. And I must add that the goal of the Lorentz transformations is not to "transform space and time", which is definitely absurd.

No doubt, Lorentz was a great physicist. What's more, and this is of the utmost importance, Lorentz strongly believed in the existence of the aether when he elaborated his equations (I write aether in order to be respectful to Descartes, who coined the word éther from the Greek "aither", the French acute accent being actually a second vowel). Considering that nobody ever demonstrated that the aether does not exist, it is rather deceiving that today's scientists consider this as a certainty. Definitely, the Lorentz transformations should be examined and tested (up to now, nobody did!) according to Lorentz's original concept. Otherwise they should not be named after him.

Unfortunately, Lorentz changed his mind later because he could not find any mechanical reason explaining matter contraction. According to Poincare, this "strange property" looked very much like a "thumb snap", which in English may be translated more exactly as a "helpful hand" conveniently given by Nature in order to hide from us our absolute motion.

But fortunately, we did find two excellent reasons for this to happen. Firstly, Louis de Broglie discovered that matter exhibits wave properties. This is especially verifiable in observing the electron diffraction patterns. And secondly, Mr. Yuri Ivanov discovered more recently that "lively standing waves" (let's call them Ivanov's waves) are undergoing a contraction. That is why it appears very likely that moving matter must undergo a contraction. It is on longer a Deus ex machina, that is to say an unexpected and improbable event which has no logical counterpart and which conveniently intervenes in order to fix an otherwise unsolvable issue.

Lorentz never totally abandoned the idea of an aether. He wrote in 1920:

x' = x – (v * t) / g


Clearly, Lorentz had to postulate that the aether exists in order to elaborate his transformations. Poincare also admitted that "this hypothesis is useful in order to explain those phenomena". Even after 1920, Einstein himself did not totally reject it either. Hence, the idea that the aether does not exist should be considered as highly suspect, especially because the real nature and mechanism of electromagnetic fields are still totally unknown today.

At all events, if you are still clinging to the idea that the aether does not exist, you are nevertheless invited to examine the simpler Alpha version of the Lorentz transformations below. It refers to a phenomenon which was discovered by Mr. Yuri Ivanov in 1981. I found that it is reproducible using an equation set which I called the Alpha transformations because it is the very beginning of the New Mechanics, a new science created by Henri Poincare. This phenomenon is highly practical, physical, indeed undisputable. As a matter of fact, it is easily reproducible and verifiable because it also applies to sound waves, which do need a medium such as air in order to propagate. And it will nevertheless lead us to Relativity.

In this case, arguing that the gaseous fluid named "air" does not exist is definitely not an option!

The Lorentz transformations apply to three phenomena.

I spent years of my life wondering what was the basic cause of the Lorentz transformations. Until recently (2010), I was quite sure that their purpose was merely to induce or neutralize the Doppler effect. However, I finally discovered that they apply differently to three separate phenomena: 1– Ivanov's standing waves. 2 – The electron. 3 – Matter. This is why the x and t variables are to be redefined according to each of them. But surprisingly, the required equation set is the same for all three of them.

This sheds some new light on the Lorentz transformations. It also explains why Lorentz himself did not oppose a stronger resistance to Poincare's Relativity Postulate. Poincare indeed considered that optical phenomena were relative and that the aether was not so important in that context. Thus, he severely modified Lorentz's absolute point of view much the same way Einstein did.

At this point, I would like to point out that my Time Scanner does induce or neutralize the Doppler effect, hence exactly the same way Poincare's reversible equations do. This is no surprise because the scanning speed of this highly polyvalent device is that of the phase wave, which was discovered by Louis de Broglie. The phase wave is a mere consequence of Lorentz's time equation, though. This strongly suggests that, even in the case of matter, we are dealing with a wave phenomenon.

Acknowledgement.

I would like to warmly express my thanks to Mr. Sergi Blanchard, whose extended knowledge in astrophysics and mathematics were helpful in making things becoming clearer. This person has the flair of a true scientist. He is capable of detecting any suspicious reasoning and of finding his way through total blackness. Recently, his comments were very often the departure point of those new discoveries. Far away from here, from his beloved Occitania, he watches with great interest my attempts to renew today's physics, which has become an incredible mess. Without him, this great adventure would have been significantly more laborious and much less fruitful...

1 – THE ALPHA TRANSFORMATIONS

(applies to Ivanov's Standing Waves).

In 1981, Mr. Yuri Ivanov discovered a fundamental phenomenon which he called lively standing waves. It is a well known fact that two sets of identical plane waves traveling in opposite directions produce plane standing waves. However, nobody had hitherto experimented what would happen if wavelengths were different.

Mr. Ivanov experimented this phenomenon using speakers and microphones in the presence of wind. He found that the characteristic node-antinode standing wave pattern was surprisingly moving, thus carrying the wave energy at the same speed. In this page, this speed is called "alpha". It is normalized according to c = 1 using Poincare's method. Hence it is always inferior to the speed of light or sound.

What's more, Mr. Ivanov discovered that the pattern was undergoing a contraction.

And furthermore, Ivanov's waves also exhibit a phase wave, which was firstly described by Louis de Broglie. The phase wave speed is given by the reciprocal of the alpha speed: v = 1 / alpha so that it is always higher than the speed of light or sound. In this perspective, according to de Broglie, the speed of light is indeed given by the geometrical mean between the alpha speed (de Broglie's "group" speed) and the phase wave speed.

I hereby introduce Ivanov's Standing Waves:

It is not necessary to give up entirely even the ether. (...) In my opinion it is not impossible that in the future this road, indeed abandoned at present, will once more be followed with good results, if only because it can lead to the thinking out of new experimental tests. Einstein's theory need not keep us

from so doing; only the ideas about the ether must accord with it.


Ivanov's waves exhibit three remarkable properties.

1 – The node and antinode pattern is moving at the alpha speed.

2 – Antinodes (shown in white) contract according to Lorentz's contraction factor g.

3 – A phase wave appear, showing regularly spaced dark stripes moving to the right.

All this is fundamental. It is the very basis of the Lorentz transformations and it leads ultimately to Relativity. Moreover, because those waves are definitely not "standing" any more, they require a more appropriate name. That is why I suggest that they should be named "Ivanov's waves". Considering that Mr. Ivanov is clearly the discoverer, he also deserves it because he soon realized that he was in touch with something really important. He calls it "rythmodynamics". He especially showed that, on the only condition that chemical bonds are performed by standing waves, matter and especially the Michelson interferometer must contract. This phenomenon explains Michelson's null result. Unfortunately, Ivanov did not agree with Lorentz and Poincare, who had preferred a contraction according to g instead of g squared. He ended up with his own "Ivanov Transformations", which apply only to acoustic phenomena.

Below are the Alpha Transformations, which are easily identifiable because of the use of the alpha speed .

The Alpha transformations.

This equation set is similar to Lorentz's one but the variables must definitely be interpreted differently.

Please check that this equation set is capable of reproducing Ivanov's waves. You may firstly examine this video:

Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.mkv

Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.bas

For the record, I repeat here that I firstly called "alpha" the relativistic mean speed between a stationary emitter and a moving one. But it should henceforth more specifically be attributed to the speed of Ivanov's standing waves.

The Lorentz contraction factor g linked to the alpha speed can easily be deduced from it: g = Sqr(1 – alpha^2). However, in this case, it may also be given by the arithmetic vs. geometric mean wavelength ratio. The y and z variables are useless here because we are dealing with plane waves only. Yet, they are still useful in order to reproduce the transverse "lively standing waves" shown farther below, which obey the same alpha transformations.

What do the variables stand for?

The Alpha transformations are basically Lorentz's ones, but their application differ significantly because the x and t variables refer neither to matter nor electromagnetic fields. They more specifically refer to the geometric mean of Ivanov's interleaved wavelengths. The resulting wavelength, which is arbitrary, is used as a reference. The Cartesian x variable stands for coordinates in such wavelength units. The t variable, in pulsation units, refers to the phase of an emitter which would produce the same arbitrary wavelength.

One may rather use the arithmetic mean, but this would require the use of g squared instead of g. Because a choice must be made, it appears preferable to resolutely cling to the geometric mean wavelength. Lorentz's contraction factor may be given by the arithmetic vs. geometric mean wavelength ratio. The alpha speed may be deduced from the wavelength ratio R. In this case, all three transformations Alpha, Beta and Gamma become identical:

R = lambda' / lambda

alpha = (R – 1) / (R + 1).

Please note that the Alpha transformations apply to acoustic and optical waves as well. After all, the goal is merely to check out what occurs when two wave trains whose wavelength differ are moving on two coincident paths. Starting from scratch, and accounting only for those two basic wavelengths, the conclusion nevertheless leads to Relativity. This is quite a giant step for such a little effort. But even though it is really not complicated, the scientific world had to wait until Ivanov's experiments in 1981.

x' = g * x + alpha * t

t' = g * t – alpha * x


Unfortunately, Mr. Ivanov ended up with his own transformations, which apply to acoustic phenomena only. They are nonetheless useful because they reproduce the regular acoustic Doppler effect. As a matter of fact, it is a special case of the Voigt transformations where k = g instead of Lorentz's unnecessary k = 1. The bad news is that Ivanov's transformations do not apply to the electron, whose frequency slows down according to g. For this reason, they do not apply to matter and hence, they cannot explain Relativity.

Incidentally, around 1895, Lorentz himself had made Ivanov's incorrect choice, which leads to a more severe axial contraction according to g squared and to a transverse contraction according to g. Fortunately, by 1904, he switched to the option which produces no transverse contraction.

Six short videos.

I made several videos showing some still unknown characteristics of Ivanov's waves.

Ivanov's waves using the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual wave medium: Standing_Waves_01_Ivanov.mkv

This one shows more simply the result of the mathematical wave addition: Standing_Waves_02_Theoretical.mkv

PLEASE VERIFY – The Alpha transformations truly reproduce Ivanov's waves: Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.mkv

This is the Hertz test in a moving frame of reference (Delmotte-Marcotte): Standing_Waves_04_Hertz.mkv

The Hertz test at the Alpha speed. Emitter A is stationary; emitter C speed is beta: Standing_Waves_05_Alpha.mkv

Ivanov's waves in the presence of acoustic Doppler compared to relativistic Doppler: Standing_Waves_06_Doppler.mkv

The third sequence Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.mkv and the program Standing_Waves_03_Transformations.bas prove undoubtedly that the Alpha transformations do reproduce Ivanov's waves. This is a major breakthrough because the use of Lorentz's equations is no longer limited to Relativity. In this case, they merely apply to a quite ordinary phenomenon. We are not dealing with some hypothetic and unrealistic space-time transformation. The equations just transform the wavelength and the phase.

The Alpha transformations still prove to be highly useful in order to understand Relativity.

This is why I carefully summarized the basics of the Alpha Transformations in the following table.


The Alpha Transformations apply to Ivanov's standing waves (acoustic or radio).

The distance units x refer to an arbitrary wave whose length is given by the geometrical mean wavelength.

The phase units t refer to the time required for such a wave to travel this distance.

It is all about distance and phase, not space and time. No Relativity here: all is absolute!

I would like to insist on the geometrical aspect of those highly Pythagorean and Cartesian transformations. On the contrary, today's Relativity is desperately esoteric. In order to avoid skidding again on a road which proves to be particularly slippery, one must realize that the basis of all this is Pythagoras' theorem.

Below, the hypotenuse length is normalized to one. It is the equivalent of the speed of light, which was also normalized to one by Henri Poincare in order to simplify Lorentz's equations. Thus, c = 1 and alpha (or beta) = v/c. The lengths or the adjacent sides now represent Lorentz's contraction factor g and the alpha speed. However, quite surprisingly, c and g remain proportional to the arithmetical mean and the geometrical mean of the two interleaved waves.

This is absolutely amazing!

In this example, the two interleaved plane waves traveling in opposite directions measure respectively 50 and 150 pixels. The x variable must be established according to the geometrical mean wavelength, hence 86,6 pixels. The Alpha equations will then indicate the correct x' coordinate. They will also indicate the correct t' phase (which may be used in order to establish the time) for this point. This means that in the beginning (that is to say, when t = 0), x' and t' are simply given by:

x ' = g * x.

t ' = –alpha * x.

The first equation indicates that a moving standing wave structure must contract according to Lorentz's contraction factor g. The second one transforms the local phase in such a way that a phase wave (de Broglie's) appears. In the case of matter, this phenomenon must rather be interpreted as Lorentz's famous "local time".

Displaying Ivanov's standing waves.

Please bear in mind that the unique function of the Alpha Transformations is to reproduce Ivanov's standing waves on a computer screen. For example, let's suppose that one needs just one image of this phenomenon. The x coordinates are given in wavelength units (in the example shown above, lambda = 86.6 according to the geometrical mean). So, x = 1 means a distance of 86.6 pixels to the origin.


Considering that the t units represent the wave period (i. e. the pulsation phase), which is periodic in nature, this distance x = 1 indicates that the period is also t = 1 (constant t = 0 at the origin). This is possible because there are no y or z coordinates, which would add to the actual distance. Please note that the t variable does not represent Lorentz's time, albeit accurate clocks indeed use an oscillation period in order to establish the time.

Each pixel needs specific x and t variables so that an array of variables (one dimension only here) is required. Finally, in order to display this arbitrary untransformed wave on the computer screen, one must convert this t period into radians:

x = distance en pixels / lambda en pixels

t = x

radian = 2 * pi * t

If x = 100 pixels, one obtains: radian = 1.1547 * 2 * pi = 7.255. The wave amplitude there is given by: sin(radian) = 0.826. It is nil at x = 0 and 1 at x = lambda / 4 (quadrature). Because we are dealing with plane waves, the same amplitude may be repeated vertically on a 50x100 pixel stripe, for example. Each pixel need a different calculus. I prefer displaying waves in black when amplitude is nil and in white when amplitude is maximum. In order to identify positive and negative amplitude, it seems best to represent positive using emerald green (regular green plus 50% blue) and magenta red (regular red plus 50% blue). The goal is to remove the annoying yellow dominant color and, most important, the wave behavior is more easily interpreted this way. One may rather use yellow and blue, but the yellow color is much brighter than blue.

Then, in order to display Ivanov's waves, one must naturally make use of the Alpha Transformations.

x ' = 0.866 * x + 0.5 * t

t ' = 0.866 * t – 0.5 * x

And finally, convert the x' variables in pixels and the t' variables in radians:

displaying the pixel: x ' * lambda

radian = 2 * pi * t '

amplitude = sin(radian)

This produces one image only. In order to obtain a sequence of images, it becomes necessary to progressively increase all the t variables according to a constant step. For example, this step may be 1 / 48, depending on the required number of images per cycle. Then the overall period will reach a full cycle after 48 images. During this time, the waves will have traveled 86.6 pixels whatever their real wavelength.

The Alpha Transformations may reproduce transverse "lively standing waves".

It was shown in the page on plane standing waves (Ivanov's waves) that transverse standing waves theoretically contain two tilted sets of traveling waves whose wavelength is equal. Thus, their geometrical mean wavelength is no longer required. Because they are tilted to a theta = arc sin(v/c) angle, their direction is not truly opposite so that both wave trains are constantly following the system. The wave-fronts being tilted, the wavelength as measured on a transverse axis seems longer.

However, applying the Alpha Transformations to the stationary system still produces the equivalent moving system. The wavelength of reference may be that of the stationary system. In addition, one must use Lorentz's equations: y' = y; z' = y in order to deal with transverse axes. Surprisingly, the transverse wavelength remaining constant, the frequency theoretically slows down. But this is not mandatory because one may prefer considering the regular Doppler effect. In this case, there is no frequency shift and a wavelength contraction occurs transversally according to Lorentz's factor.

Here, the system alpha speed is rather difficult to establish because the phase wave is the only visible structure. It looks somewhat like a checkerboard but it is more or less distorted because of the theta angle. This phenomenon occurs because of a scissor effect. Here too, the phase wave is moving faster than the speed of the waves: v = 1 / alpha.


Transverse "lively standing waves".

The wavelength is the same in both directions.

Those waves are traveling apparently in opposite directions.

They actually propagate according to an angle: theta = arc sin(alpha).

The phase wave, showing interference fringes moving forward, . Its peed is equal to: 1 / alpha.

The transverse standing waves are well visible in this video:

Phase_Wave.mkv

The electron and matter itself behave this way.

Considering simultaneously longitudinal and transversal standing waves, one obtains a fairly good idea of how a moving electron should behave. Ivanov's standing waves indeed indicate that the electron consists of spherical standing waves. This idea was proposed by Mr. Milo Wolff around 1980. By 2002, in my book "Matter is made of waves", I myself had found that such a system should undergo the Doppler effect in order to move. And today, it turns out that the electron is undergoing an unusual Doppler effect according to the Beta Transformations (see below).

This is the central core of the electron, which is made of spherical standing waves.

The contraction and the phase wave are well visible.

Speed: 0.866 c. Contraction: 50% (g = 0.5).

The following argument is fundamental : if matter is made of standing waves, or more practically on condition that chemical bindings are involving the electron wavelength, then any moving material structure obviously contracts according to Lorentz's contraction factor. Additionally, moving clocks must display slower seconds and exhibit a time shift. This is the absolute effect of motion on matter, and it depends strictly on the speed of its wave structure with respect to the aether. Lorentz's absolute point of view proves to be correct. Those effects are not relative. They are recorded in a quite surprising way by a moving observer, though. That is why Poincare and Einstein, who were theoretically wrong, finally ended up with correct predictions anyway.

It will be demonstrated below that, in the case of matter, all becomes much simpler. The x and x' variables stand for the distance to the origin, in light-second units, using a Cartesian – not Galilean – frame of reference. The t and t' variables stand for the time displayed by clocks in second units. Surprisingly, the required Gamma equations remain identical to those of the Alpha and Beta sets.

Now, the fundamentals being exposed and demonstrated, indeed cast in stone forever at this point, Relativity becomes more easily understandable.

Mr. Ivanov discovered the reason why matter contracts.

Lorentz discovered that matter contracts according to g, without any transverse contraction. It is the only possible option. Today, we must acknowledge that Mr. Yuri Ivanov went farther than Lorentz by exposing the mechanical reasons of this phenomenon. Having


found that "lively standing waves" contract, he put forward that matter itself should contract, given the fact that chemical bindings are already well known to be dependant on the electron wavelength.

2 – THE BETA TRANSFORMATIONS

(applies to the electron)

The Alpha, Beta and Gamma equations sets seem identical. However, the Beta transformations apply solely to the electron because the meaning of the variables and their pre-calculus differ significantly. Considering that Lorentz and Poincare also applied Lorentz's equations to the electron and to its electromagnetic fields, we are definitely dealing here with the original Lorentz transformations. This is why the electron speed will be normalized here according to Poincare's beta = v/c.

Additionally, the electron being a three-dimensional spherical standing wave system, the Cartesian frame of reference includes the transverse y and z axes, whose coordinates do not transform.

The Beta transformations.

This is merely the reversed version of the Lorentz-Poincare original equation set.

Except for the use of the beta speed, this set is identical to that of the Alpha transformations.

Firstly, the x, y and z variables stand for the electron coordinates when it is at rest. The units refer to the electron wavelength, which is still unknown, but may be set to an arbitrary number of pixels on a computer screen. Hence, in 2-D, the coordinates (x = 3; y = 4) after conversion from pixel to wavelength units indicate that the distance from this point to the electron center measures Sqr(3^2 + 4^2) = 5 wavelengths.

Secondly, the t variable stands for the phase for the (x, y) coordinates. This phase is given by the distance to the origin. As a matter of fact, it is undergoing a complete rotation (2 pi radians) for each additional distance of one electron wavelength. Thus, using a 2-D display, the variable t simply stands for this distance in wavelength units.

t = Sqr(x^2 + y^2)

This is easily verifiable because the stationary electron may be displayed using the cardinal sine function on condition that the t phase (or t' for the moving electron) is converted into radians:

radian = 2 * pi * t

amplitude = sin(radian) / radian

This is what Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte demonstrated using his own version of the Delmotte-Marcotte wave medium. There is a singularity: if radian = 0, then amplitude = 1. Finally, using such variables, the Beta equation set transforms a stationary electron into a moving electron.


The moving electron (on the right side) exhibits a stunning phase wave.

The video below shows my moving electron without the 3-D effect.

Doppler_Moving_Electron.mkv

You may examine the program which produced those images by means of the Beta transformations.

Doppler_Moving_Electron.bas Doppler_Moving_Electron.exe

The "time" equation: t ' = g * t indicates that in the case of the electron, a totally new and amazing phenomenon takes place. It it moves, the electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's factor g.

That is why the electron Doppler effect differs from the acoustic one: it is "relativistic". Relativity is certainly true because it was verified many times in the past. It is accepted here as Poincare's 1904 Relativity Postulate, but certainly not according to Poincare's opinion that optical phenomena are relative. It is rather according to Lorentz's conviction that Relativity is the result of a mystification due to the relativistic Doppler effect, which is consistent with the existence of the aether.

The main Principle behind this is that the alpha speed must appear (as the result of a mystification) to be exactly intermediate between zero and beta. In the Alpha example exposed above, the alpha speed was 0.5 c and the two wavelengths were: lambda = 50 and lambda' = 150. Now, let's consider an electron at rest whose wavelength is 50 pixels on a computer screen. In this case, another electron has to move away very fast in order produce a relativistic Doppler backward lambda' = 150 pixels. Its speed (or that of a distant galaxy, which behaves similarly) is given by:

beta = 2 / ((lambda / lambda')^2 + 1) – 1

beta = 2 / ((50 / 150)^2 + 1) – 1 = 0.8 c

Lorentz's contraction factor: g = Sqr(1 – beta^2) = 0.6

Relativistic redshift: lambda' = lambda * (1 + beta) / g

lambda' = 50 * (1 + 0.8) / 0.6 = 150

The alpha speed 0.5 is definitely not the arithmetic mean speed between 0 and 0.8 c. The mean speed is rather 0.4. However, it will truly appear to be the exact mean speed according to Poincare's law of speed addition, which is given by:


Adding 0.5 to 0.5:

beta'' = (0.5 + 0.5) / (1 + 0.5 * 0.5) = 0.8

Surprisingly, adding 0.5 to 0.8 using Poincare's law produces a 0.92857 speed which is still slower than the speed of light. What's more, even if one adds 0.5 to the result again and again, the electron never reaches the speed of light. That is why Poincare said in 1904 (Saint-Louis, USA) that the speed of light is an unattainable limit.

Inversely, Lorentz's factor g value for beta being 0.6, the alpha mean speed is given by:


alpha = (1 – 0.6) / 0.8 = 0.5

Now, let's consider an observer who is moving away from a stationary electron at the alpha 0.5 speed. On the opposite side, and apparently at the same distance, another electron is moving away from him at the beta 0.8 speed. Being totally mystified, this observer may consider that he himself is stationary and that the two electrons are moving away from him in opposite directions at the same alpha speed.

f ' = g f


Similarly, let's suppose that we are observing two galaxies moving away from the Milky Way at the same 0.5 speed and in opposite directions. This is obviously because both ones must exhibit the same 1.732 redhift. However, it might also be because one galaxy is stationary while the other one is moving at 0.8 c. In this case, the Milky Way speed should be 0.5 c. The calculus being identical, and considering only the redshift, it is quite impossible to determine which hypothesis is the correct one. Actually, there are many more side effects such as a contraction and a time shift. But surprisingly, they all contribute to the same sublime mystification.

This is the most stunning application of the alpha speed. For example, using the Hertz test, the observer would indeed obtain equal wavelengths from both electrons or galaxies. Below is the video showing a similar situation with a beta speed of 0.5 and an alpha speed of 0.2679.


Considering today's sophisticated instruments, this phenomenon is easily verifiable right now using much slower alpha and beta speeds. The point is that most astronomers still believe that Relativity doesn't apply to distant galaxies. They prefer relying on the theory of the expansion of the universe. According to them, our world should expand much the same way a raisin pudding does in the oven. The raisins distance to one another increases proportionally so that, using the coordinates of a small group of raisins, it would be impossible to detect where is the center of the whole pudding.

Well, they are wrong! Our universe being obviously in expansion, the Big Bang must be relativistic. This statement will soon be demonstrated. My page on the Relativistic Big Bang is still available only in French, but you may already examine the tables, graphics and videos because most of them are in English. For example, according to Mr. Saul Perlmutter's observations, the expansion of the universe is speeding up. This conclusion will prove to be false because the Hubble constant does not take the Lorentz contraction into account. There are far more galaxies over .9 c than under 0.1 c because they contract, and this includes the distance to one another. This is no raisin pudding. As a matter of fact, relying on the Hubble constant, which doesn't account for the Lorentz contraction, the true distance of a very fast and distant supernova is incorrectly recorded so that it is no longer consistent with its constant brightness.

Mr. Perlmutter had to put forward his conclusion because of the surprising results of his researches. It was indeed a brilliant quest. Some day, however, astronomers will admit their error. Then Mr. Perlmutter will rather be known as the man who verified that Relativity also applies to the universe.

The table below compares the acoustic Doppler effect to the relativistic one.


The relativistic Doppler effect is the consequence of the slower frequency of the electron: f ' = g f.

For instance, a supernova redshift is given by: (1 + beta) / g.

In the case of sound, the backward Doppler effect calculus is simpler: 1 + beta.

3 – THE GAMMA TRANSFORMATIONS

(applies to matter).

The Gamma Transformations apply to matter. This is obviously what Lorentz had in mind when he suggested that the Michelson interferometer should undergo a contraction on the displacement axis x. For the third time, they are given by the same equation set. But now (at last!) the variables x, x' and t, t' really stand for space and time units.

The Gamma Transformation of matter.

The x and x' variables stand for absolute distances in light-second units (300 000 km).

The t variable stands for the absolute time in second units.

The t' variable stands for slower g * t second units inducing a –beta * x time shift.


The space variables refer to absolute distances in light-second units. The t time variable refer to absolute seconds while the t' one rather refer to slower seconds being displayed by moving clocks, which are ticking slower. Those are arbitrary units, they were established in our moving world which is transformed, yet they are acceptable as absolute units because they are likely to be imposed anywhere else.

Because all three equation sets are identical, we are definitely dealing with waves. Even in the case of matter...

The mechanical effects of the Lorentz Transformations.

My Gamma version of the Lorentz Transformations is more easily understandable, indeed transparent. The reversed equations very clearly indicate what Lorentz had in mind. Please note that below, b stands for beta. Now, let's check this out carefully:

1 – Moving matter contracts according to : g x. The variable x stands for distances in light-seconds and the t time units are in seconds. For mechanical reasons, any material structure including voids such as our solar system also contract this way. Especially, this causes the Michelson interferometer to constantly correct the aberration so that the results are remaining null.

2 – The object whose coordinate is x' at time t = 0 moves to x' + beta * t after t seconds. This is the most obvious translational motion. For example, if an electron moves at 0.5 times the speed of light, his new position will be 150 000 kilometers beyond the previous point after a 1 second delay. This merely reproduces Galileo's transformations: x' = x – v t except that here, x refers to a truly stationary Cartesian system of axes. The speed is positive: as a convention, the electron then moves to the right.

3 – Moving clocks are indicating slower seconds according to: t' = g t.

4 – Moving clocks also exhibit a time shift according to: – b x. Note the minus sign: clocks at the rear are in advance.

Considering that matter exhibits wave properties and that it transforms in an absolute way in the presence of the aether, Relativity as a mystification can now be easily, totally, and undoubtedly deduced from the Lorentz transformations.

Relativity is not a theory any more. It is a law of Nature.

Poincare's reversible equation set.

The Beta transformations produce the Doppler effect when applied to waves emitted by a pulsating wave center. However, they may neutralize it as well if it is present (it was indeed Voigt's goal in 1887). My Time Scanner performs similar reversible Doppler effects.

Here is a video showing a smoother view of this phenomenon: Time_Scanner_Doppler.mkv

Henri Poincare released a symmetrical version of the Lorentz transformations which may either induce or neutralize the Doppler effect. My own version being already reversed, it must be reversed again the way Poincare did. This is done merely by swapping the variables and the signs.

x' = g x + b t

t' = g t – b x


The Lorentz Transformations "group" revisited (Poincare's style).

SIMILAR TRANSFORMATIONS WERE ELABORATED BY MANY PEOPLE

In 1887, and later with the help of Morley, Michelson conducted a series of experiences using his famous interferometer. Surprisingly, this highly sophisticated device failed to reveal the motion of the earth through the aether.

However, the experience was not a failure. The null result was more exactly an indication that a still unknown phenomena had manifested itself. This is why many scientists participated to this great adventure.

Woldemar Voigt.

In 1887, Woldemar Voigt elaborated an equation set whose goal was to neutralize the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations. Apparently, Lorentz was totally unaware of its existence. Here is a transposition:

Obviously, those equations are incorrect because of the absence or Voigt's constant and the presence of Lorentz's factor (q according to this notation) transforming y and z. However, many years ago, I could find another version of the Voigt transformations which was significantly different because it included an additional k (or "l") constant, which according to Lorentz was also present in Voigt's version. I still ignore where this version came from, but I could correct two errors and modify them in such a way that they now work fine. Thus, whoever elaborated them, he was certainly on the right track.

The Voigt transformations revisited.

This equation set produces a variable Doppler effect according to a frequency which depends on the constant k. The program below is capable of performing four different transformations: press A, B, C or D to select one. If k = 1, the result is Lorentz's slower Doppler effect showing no transverse contraction: x' = x; z' = z.

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.bas Doppler _Voigt_transformations.exe

This indicates that whenever the Doppler effect transforms radio waves, it is a relativistic effect. Formerly, only very fast speeds were known to introduce relativistic effects. Today however, because our instruments are more and more accurate, we are aware that radio signals emitted from the International Space Station do exhibit a Doppler effect even though it cannot be detected by astronauts in orbit. This Doppler effect being considerable, Einstein's Relativity cannot account for it because the Space Station definitely moves faster than the Earth's surface. There is no "reciprocity" any more and a preferred frame of reference must be considered.

Please note that the Voigt transformations should not be considered only as a curiosity. The version below is great in order to produce the regular acoustic Doppler effect, which produces a transverse wavelength contraction according to g. In this case, because k = g, the set simplifies to:


The regular Doppler effect.

Here, x, y, z stand for distance to origin in sound wavelength units and t stands for the pulsation phase.

Heaviside and FitzGerald.

In 1889, Oliver Heaviside found that electrostatic charges should contract according to Lorentz's factor g, which was already known as "the aberration". His friend George FitzGerald then suggested that the Michelson interferometer may contract according to it.

FitzGerald was right on this, but his hypothesis was never published. He did not suggest any time effect, either. On the positive side however, Lorentz admits in 1904 that the contraction hypothesis was proposed first by FitzGerald. This is why this phenomenon is known as the "Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction".

Joseph Larmor.

In 1897, Joseph Larmor suggested a transformation involving just a translational motion (x' = x – v t) without any x' contraction, but where the interferometer contraction might be the result of the time shift. This is an interesting, indeed brilliant idea. What's more, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the aether. From this point of view, he was the only unconditional adept of Lorentz's Relativity.

In 1900, in his book "Aether and Matter", he proves to be very familiar with the transformations. The contraction factor is well exposed and the time equation indicates a time shift.

Joseph Larmor was well aware of Lorentz's researches and conversely. The same uncertainty exists between Lorentz and Poincare, who exchanged letters. It is hard to figure out what was new from each of them. It would be interesting to shed some light on their contribution to Relativity.

I am of an opinion that Joseph Larmor was certainly an ace scientist.

Yuri Ivanov.

In 1981, Mr. Yuri Ivanov released his own transformations:


Yuri Ivanov's transformations (1981).

The Ivanov Transformations are interesting because they may correctly reflect the behavior of Ivanov's waves. However, there is no specification of a basic wavelength, or of the corresponding phase, which may be related to that of the stationary system. The Alpha Transformations refer to the mean geometrical wavelength. This is why the formulae are different, but they may still produce the same effects.

Mr. Ivanov proposes a contraction according to: 1 – beta2, hence g squared instead of g as it is shown in Lorentz's version. He proposes a transverse contraction according to g, which is consistent with the regular Doppler effect. The time equation is unusual because of the use of a theta angle, yet the Doppler effect is indeed sinusoidal. All this is consistent with the acoustic Doppler, which applies only to sound waves. Mr. Ivanov's experiments were indeed conducted using loudspeakers and microphones. It must be pointed out again that the use of the arithmetical (not geometrical) mean wavelength leads to Lorentz's factor g squared instead of g while dealing with the Alpha transformations. This occurs when l = g in Poincare's version shown below, or when k = g in Voigt's version shown above.

Interestingly, the table also refers to Galileo's transformations, which lead to his "Relativity Principle". Relativity is always the consequence of similar transformations. However, Galileo's ones are merely the expression of a reversible translational motion, which may be perceived differently by two observers whose speed is different.

x ' = x – v t

t ' = t

Using Poincare's method (see much farther below), and considering that t' = t, one obtains this symmetrical equation:

x = x ' + v t '

Henri Poincaré.

In 1905, Henri Poincare discusses Lorentz theory (1904) in his book "Electricity and Optics". He introduces Lorentz's equation set (his own one, actually), which exhibits Voigt's constant "q" shown above (or "l "below, or "k" according to my own notation). The translational motion and the time shift are correct. In 1901, Poincare writes that, using the trial and error method, Lorentz had already found the correct value of this constant: l =1. Later, Poincare himself found it to be equal to 1 according to the Least Action Principle (c. f. Maupertuis, Euler, Lagrange).

Furthermore, Poincare was especially good at estimating Lorentz's "local time" because he had worked at the "Commission des Longitudes" in France. He pointed out that a clock synchronization procedure using optical signals would end up with a time shift because of the motion of the Earth with respect to the aether. In his books, however, the results are clearly incorrect because he systematically rejects matter contraction as an absolute fact ("a strange property, a convenient thumb snap", he notes). The time shift according to: – beta * x in the time equation is accurate.

Poincare's equations were released in 1905, after Lorentz's final ones (1904). They are clearly more accurate. They are also simpler because of the use of the normalized speed (epsilon). They also exhibit the famous gamma factor (k, actually), which is commonly used today in most texts on Relativity. The speed of light is set to unity so that the v/c normalized speed is always inferior to 1. In addition, c squared as 1 * 1 conveniently remains 1. Poincare claims that those equations were elaborated by Lorentz and he names them after Lorentz. One may doubt this, though, because Poincare was desperately humble. I suspect that this equation set is actually one of Poincare's multiple and magnificent achievements (The Relativity Postulate, the law of relativistic speed addition, the E = mc^2 equation, the New Mechanics, the similitude between inertia an gravity, among others).

Today, all those innovations are systematically and unfairly assigned to Einstein. As a matter of fact, most of today's scientists reveal their ignorance (or bad faith?) when they claim that Einstein was a genius. One can find so many texts and references published between 1895 and 1904 about the Lorentz transformations and Relativity that Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity appears incredibly redundant. It is a well known fact that Einstein's main occupation before 1905 was to write résumés on the latest achievements in physics for the Annalen der Physik. He was obviously well aware of them. In addition, there is no evidence of some original preliminary studies before 1905. It is simply impossible that he elaborated the theory of Relativity in so small a period of time. After all, Lorentz, Poincare


and Larmor, who were three eminent physicists, could solve this problem only after 10 years of hard work. The truth is that, with rare effrontery, Einstein just copied Poincare's ideas.

Therefore, I will deliberately omit Einstein's equations here. They are indeed similar to Poincare's ones. This is no surprise: Einstein's Relativity is definitely a clone of Poincare's one. Unfortunately, Poincare was wrong, and so was Einstein. Only Lorentz's Relativity proves to be correct. What's more, it doesn't need esoteric and wacky concepts such as space-time transformations.

In Poincare's equations below, the l = 1 constant may be discarded and k stands for the gamma factor. Those are known as "the Lorentz transformations", albeit they were most probably released in their ultimate form by Henri Poincare.

Poincare's outstanding equation set (1905).

The unnecessary constant l = 1 is still present.

Hendrik Lorentz.

In my opinion, Lorentz's most important discovery was the so-called "time dilation". It is actually the electron slower frequency, which is ultimately responsible for all phenomena to occur more slowly when matter is moving very fast. Clearly, Lorentz had solved the problem by 1901, well before he released his ultimate masterpiece: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", Amsterdam Academy, 1904.

This is Lorentz's version or the Lorentz Transformations (1904).

The translation motion is absent and the time equation is questionable.

Please note that k stands for the gamma factor: k = 1 / g.

The unnecessary constant l = 1 is still present.

There are some serious discrepancies when comparing Lorentz to Poincare. Especially, the translational motion (according to: beta * t as shown below) does not appear in Lorentz's first equation shown above. Some interpretations suggest that it is already present in a previously modified x* variable: (x* = x – vt). Although this does make sense, there is no evidence of such a pre-calculus in Lorentz's 1904 paper.


This absence of a translational motion is immaterial, though, because the important point is that matter really contracts, in an absolute way. Please bear in mind that x' refers to the stationary system so that it appears expanded here according to the gamma factor. Lorentz also found that moving clocks are ticking slower (the stationary clock is logically ticking faster according to the t' time), and that they should indicate a "local time". Unfortunately, Lorentz's time equation is somewhat fuzzy. To be honest, Poincare's version shown above is best. It is not that important because Lorentz described the theory more logically than Poincare, who rejected the idea that matter truly contracts.

POINCARE'S LAW OF SPEED ADDITION

According to Lorentz and Poincare, inertia increases according to the speed in such a way that the speed of light is unattainable. For example, let's consider an observer who is already moving at half of the speed of light. From his point of view, he is stationary so that he may decide to accelerate in the same direction to half of the speed of light. But if it was true, he would then move exactly at the speed of light, which is impossible.

Knowing this, Poincare elaborated the following equation:


According to this equation, the observer would finally move at 80% of the speed of light.

To be perfectly logic, an astronaut who is already moving at 0.5 times the speed of light as seen from Earth should acknowledge that he is indeed moving that fast because he experienced considerable acceleration effects. Thus, the Earth is definitely a preferred frame of reference because its average speed (and consequently, his measure units) did not change. That is why Lorentz's Relativity appears preferable to Einstein's one.

THE ALL-AZIMUTH TRANSFORMATIONS

Furthermore, the equations shown above cannot transform many items simultaneously if their speed or direction differ. This is especially the case for distant and very fast galaxies, which are surely undergoing the Lorentz transformations. On a small scale, it is possible to rely on the y' = y and z' = z equations. But if the goal is to represent the entire universe, then one needs a three-dimensional version of the Lorentzian transformations.

No problem, here they are!

This is new: the Lorentz three-dimensional transformations.

They firstly apply to the universe, which is expanding in a relativistic way.

They may also perform the regular Lorentz transformations whatever the direction of a system.


The formula: gxyz

= gx gy gz introduces a new Law of Relativistic Speed Composition.

The speed of light being unattainable, it works much the same way Poincare's Law of Relativistic Speed Addition does.

I elaborated those equations in May and June 2009. They were complicated in the beginning, but I succeeded in simplifying them so that they now look nice. Using them, the phase wave especially is very easy to obtain. I could also reproduce the motion of an emitter, whatever its direction, and induce the correct impulse while dealing with the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium.

This is definitely the most significant mathematical achievement of my life. Below is an example of how those equations perform using Mr. Marcotte's wave algorithm.

The all-azimuth transformations allow one to perform multiple Lorentz transformations, whatever the direction.

Big_Bang_03_Multiple_Doppler.mkv

The FreeBASIC program: Big_Bang_03_Multiple_Doppler.bas

Those nice all-azimuth equations, which I am very proud of, produce the usual translation, contraction, slower pulsation and phase wave (or time shift). However, it is now possible to transform many systems simultaneously whatever their individual speed and direction. My Time Scanner can do this more easily because it merely scans a scene using the phase wave speed: 1 / beta.

The animations below were obtained using the three-dimensional transformations:

– The Doppler effect on an oblique trajectory, using the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium : Relativistic_Doppler.avi

– My moving electron, also on an oblique trajectory: Doppler_Moving_Electron_Diagonal.avi

– De Broglie's phase wave, in the context of the expanding universe: Big_Bang_04_Phase_Wave.mkv

– Here, I did not hesitate to transform Lorentz himself! Lorentz_3D_Transformations.mkv

This is indeed a new interpretation of Lorentz's transformation! The contraction effects are especially interesting. The goal was to show that the phase wave is entangled to the contraction. One must place it inside an ellipse (not a circle) in order to obtain a perfect superimposition to the relativistic Doppler effect. Below is an even more dramatic view of this entanglement:

Phase_Wave_2.mkv

The Time Scanner is even more effective.

Below is a more complete video. Although it may appear somewhat complex, its results prove that the 1904 version of Lorentz's Relativity is correct.


Time_Scanner.mkv

The FreeBasic program: WaveMechanics07.bas

The Time Scanner is the perfect tool for displaying a situation as seen by the moving observer B, who cannot detect his motion and may consider that he is stationary. The observer B is unconsciously performing the Lorentz transformations, that is to say, replacing the actual moving electron by an ideal stationary electron. The Scanner is also capable or transforming an unlimited number of transformations in a single operation, which is quite impossible to do using Einstein's Relativity because of incompatible measures. Additionally, the red scale doesn't transform. This shows that considering a fabulous "space-time transformation" is unnecessary, indeed ridiculous.

The Time Scanner reproduces the Lorentz transformations because it scans a moving scene at the phase wave speed, which is given by: 1 / alpha. Obviously, any moving observer receives the light waves incoming from the front before those incoming from the rear. It is useless to look beyond this simple fact: a moving observer cannot record a moving scene correctly because of this. That is why he cannot detect the Doppler effect in his own environment; conversely, he does detect a Doppler effect in waves which are exempt of such an effect.

The Time Scanner is a powerful tool.

The Time Scanner is capable of performing multiple transformations whatever the direction or the speed of an item. This is possible on condition that each item is already transformed before undergoing a second transformations. For example, the center of the rotating gear shown on the left below is stationary. However, because the external part is moving at 0.866 times the speed of light, its elements are contracted to half of their normal size. The circular black dots are similarly contracted so that they now appear elliptic.

The scanning process transforms the whole scene so that it appears quite different on the right part of the animation shown on the right below. Now, the center is moving at 0.866 times the speed of light. The upper part of the gear still doesn't move faster than the speed of light, though, as a result of Poincare's law of speed addition.

beta'' = (beta + beta') / (1 + beta * beta') = (0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 * 0.866) = 0.9897.

And finally, knowing that the t' time indicates that any material event occurs later in the front of a system, the upper section of the gear shown on the right below is moving slower than the lower section in order to be consistent with this time effect.

Motion Optics.

I would like to insist on the fact that the miscomprehension of Relativity is the consequence of an insufficient knowledge of optics, especially when motion takes place. That is why I laid the foundations of a new branch of optics, which I called Motion Optics.

Such ignorance is deplorable. For instance, after several years of promotion, the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual wave medium is still practically unknown. Thanks to it, a lot of wave phenomena, especially in the presence of motion, will be easily observable and verifiable. No doubt that all students in optics and acoustics will make an intensive use of it in the future.

Lorentz's Relativity.

Lorentz was right. Unfortunately, he was unable to justify his contraction hypothesis, as it appeared at that time suspiciously convenient. The point is that Lorentz was unaware that matter exhibits wave properties. This was discovered later by Louis de Broglie. What's more, Lorentz did not know that standing waves contract the way Mr. Ivanov showed in 1981. That is why matter contraction must be reconsidered.

Lorentz's Relativity now becomes obvious and logic. There are no paradoxes any more.

Let's be clear: Relativity is all about the observer's mystification !

– Facts are absolute.

– Space and time do not transform.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | You are here. | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

– The speed of light is dependent on the aether.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update February 15, 2011.


THE TIME SCANNER

The Time Scanner produces a Doppler effect.

Inversely, it may also correct the Doppler effect, which was Woldemar Voigt's goal in 1887.

This device actually reproduces the Lorentz transformations.

If they are applied to a material body, the result is a length contraction, a slower rate of time and a time shift.

The Time Scanner is highly useful in order to understand Lorentzian Relativity.

Below are three videos showing this phenomenon more accurately.

Time_Scanner_Doppler.mkv

Twin_Paradox_A_Preferred.mkv

Twin_Paradox_B_Preferred.mkv

You may also examine the FreeBASIC programs which produced these images:

Time_Scanner_Doppler.bas

Time_Scanner_02.bas

In March 2004, I invented a scanner which is capable or reproducing the Lorentz transformations. The goal was to scan an

http://glafreniere.com/sa_scanner.htm

animated scene in such a way that Lorentz's contraction occurs. Moreover, a scanner produces an image where events did not occur at the same time. I managed to scan the scene at different times which match Lorentz's famous local time, and this is why I called this device "the Time Scanner".

The Time Scanner produces a Doppler effect which is clearly visible above. However, it may correct the Doppler effect as well. Such a reversibility is also the main characteristic of the Lorentz transformations. It was pointed out by Henri Poincare in 1904.

As shown in the above animation, moving clocks indicate different times along the line of motion. This local time was discovered by Lorentz himself, albeit it could be deduced from Voigt's equations. Many successive images produced this way and displayed as a movie clip would reveal that the emitter frequency and the equivalent seconds would be slowed down according to Lorentz's contraction factor g. This was called "time dilation" but actually, moving clocks cannot transform time. They just tick slower. In addition, thanks to the vertical scale, one can check that the wavelength remains constant perpendicularly to the line of motion: y' = y; z' = z. Because the regular Doppler effect produces a wavelength contraction transversally, this slower Doppler effect is obviously a very special one.

And finally, if the scene contains a lot of material bodies or emitters whose speed and direction is not the same, the Time Scanner is still capable of transforming all of them as if they were in a faster or in a slower frame of reference. It is capable of performing an unlimited number of transformations on an unlimited number of coordinates. Not just one at a time. It may also scan an entire 3-D scene, the scanner being a moving plane.

Lorentz's equations simply cannot achieve such a complex result in just one operation. The Time Scanner proves to be the ultimate tool in order to study motion mechanics, motion optics, the Lorentz transformations, and Relativity.

A moving observer is fooled by the Doppler effect.

It should be well understood that because of the Doppler effect, the distance being equal, events observed at the rear occurred sooner. They are perceived later because the relative velocity of the waves propagating forward is slower: v' = v * (1 + beta). It is faster backward: v' = v * (1 – beta). The moving observer is unaware of this. He doesn't know anything about his movement and hence, he believes to be at rest. So the time shift is only the consequence of his error after a clock synchronization procedure using radio waves whose velocity is similarly distorted. The Time Scanner may correct this error and show what is really going on. Inversely, it may rather introduce the error and show what the moving observer is seeing.

The Time Scanner is highly useful because there is no other way to show how optical phenomena should be seen by any moving observer whatever his speed. Strangely, he observes that a Doppler effect is present in a system at rest even though there is none. On the contrary, the Doppler effect being present in his own environment, he cannot detect it.

And because matter consists of waves, the moving observer perceives matter itself according to the same rules. This is why a moving observer sees a material body being contracted, behaving slower, and exhibiting local hours even though it is stationary. As a matter of fact, most probably, both of them are moving with respect to the aether and their line of motion differ. But they can only record the speed difference because of this reciprocity.

The Lorentz transformations: a brief reminder.

Hendrick Antoon Lorentz discovered that if a material structure is moving very fast:

1 – Distances along the displacement axis contract.

2 – All phenomena occur with a slower rate of time, hence clocks indicate slower seconds.

3 – A time shift occurs, clocks being in advance at the rear.

Lorentz explained that the Michelson interferometer was undergoing a contraction whose effect was to cancel the speed difference along two orthogonal axes. It was shown in the previous page that he was aware that his equations were only a mathematical artifice. Woldemar Voigt's goal (in 1887) was to modify Maxwell's equations in such a way that the results became invariant whatever the speed of the frame of reference. Except for Voigt's constant, Lorentz's equations were identical and they were also applied to Maxwell's equations. This is why his transformations do not indicate a contraction. They rather indicate longer x' coordinates in order to restore the initial distances.

To cut a long story short, Lorentz's variables x and t should rather stand for distance and time in a frame of reference which is stationary. It appears rather illogic that they were applied to the moving frame of reference. So, in order to indicate matter contraction, Lorentz's equations must be reversed and transposed this way:

Lorentz's reversed equations (upper left).

The set on the right is Poincare's symmetric reversed version. It works great!

One may retrieve Lorentz's original equation by extracting the x variable: x = (x' – beta * t) / g

To achieve the exact transposition, x and x' must also be swapped: x' = (x – beta * t) / g.


CALCULUS AND PROCEDURE

beta = 0.866 (rightward).

Contraction: g = 0.5 light-second.

Time shift: t' = –beta = –.866 second.

Here, contraction is performed using a slower print speed.

This alternative method also reproduces the Lorentz transformations.

This reversed equation set is highlighting a new approach to the Lorentz transformations, which now appear quite limpid. Apart from the translation motion (according to beta * t) and the time shift (according to –beta * x), it becomes obvious that matter contracts according to g * x and that clocks indicate slower seconds according to g * t.

Lorentz's ideas were clear but unfortunately, his equations were not. In the context of Einstein's esoteric Special Relativity, the well known gamma factor, which is given by 1 / g, was misleading. In order to clean up all this mess, the use of Lorentz's contraction factor g is preferable:

x' = g * x + beta * t

t' = g * t – beta * x

The Lorentz transformations are absolute.

This is the correct version of the Lorentz transformations. It is what Lorentz was well aware of. The aether exists and any speed should preferably be related to it. Facts, events are absolute but unfortunately, it turns out that they can never be observed in an absolute way. They always appear relative so that Relativity is just a mystification.

One must bear all this in mind while examining the Time Scanner. Transforming space and time was definitely a strange idea. The transformations occur solely because the electron frequency slows down. The Doppler effect produces a contraction (as a matter of fact, standing waves contract) along the displacement axis in spite of the longer overall wavelength. Matter structure is dependent on electrons. Even empty spaces inside and between material structures contract because the whole area is filled up with fields of force which are also made out of standing waves.

Obviously, moving clocks cannot transform time. Their mechanism just slow down because of the slower electron frequency. They indicate slower seconds which are inaccurate with respect to standard time, which has been adopted as a convention. Such a time is absolute whatever the actual speed of the frame of reference where it is observed.

It was decided years ago that, in order to avoid the transformation of a material reference, whatever the cause, the meter length should be given by a wavelength and that the second duration should be given by a frequency. Some day the ultimate reference will be the electron wavelength and frequency. The electron wavelength reference is accurate at any speed at least along the y and z Cartesian axes according to Lorentz: y' = y; z' = z. In this context, Lorentz's x and x' variables do not apply to space. They rather apply to the electron standing waves along the displacement axis. The t and t' variables do not apply to time, they apply to the electron frequency.

Einstein's Special Relativity was totally unable to reconcile more than two frames of Reference. Only two frames of reference were still quite hard to explain because the results lead to a lot of paradoxes. Contradictions, actually.

The Time Scanner is free from paradoxes. It is capable of dealing with an unlimited number of frames of reference. It may accelerate the whole scene or slow it down as well. It especially shows that, in the presence of two frames of reference, one can introduce a third one whose speed is intermediate and where no contraction or time dilation occurs. For this reason, this frame of reference is a preferred one. This behavior is clearly visible in the animation shown above because the text and the stationary graphics do not change.

Introducing space and time transformation was a mistake. Under certain conditions, they do not transform in spite of the fact that, nevertheless, material bodies still transform physically and mechanically according to Lorentz.

Invoking such a strange hypothesis becomes unnecessary. Moreover, Euclidean geometry is simpler than non-Euclidean. Frankly, why not consider that space and time never transform?


The Time Scanner may contract the frame of reference by moving it according to the "alpha" speed (see below). In this case, the scan speed and the print speed are the same. However, the animated Gif shown above uses a slower print speed in order to achieve the same result. In this case, the frame of reference to be transformed does not move.

The result is consistent with the Lorentz transformations. The x = –1 coordinate transforms to x' = –0,5 light-second according to Lorentz's contraction factor g. Whatever the delay, the clock in the front is late with respect to the other one at the rear. This "local time" is given by: –beta for every x = 1 light-second before contraction occurred. One should bear in mind that moving clocks also run slow compared to stationary ones.

The scan speed is that of the phase wave.

The phase wave was Louis de Broglie's discovery but is is a mere consequence of the Lorentz transformations. It follows coordinates in the line of motion where the t' time remains the same. The Time Scanner also follows those coordinates in order to finally obtain a full image where the t' time seems to be the same as seen by a moving observer.

The phase wave velocity is always faster than the speed of light. It is given by: c ^ 2 / v meters per second or by: 1 / beta light-seconds per second (or wavelengths per wave cycle). It is well visible in the animation below showing the moving electron on the right:

The static electron (left) and the moving electron (right).

Please observe the vertical dark stripes regularly spaced which are moving to the right: this is the phase wave.

Scanning the image on the right in-between the stripes at the same speed produces an image of the static electron.

Reciprocally, scanning the image on the left at the same speed produces an image of the moving electron.

Such a result is amazing. It explains Relativity.

You may also examine the movie clip below, which shows plane waves, then curved waves producing interferences. The white cursor follows the resulting phase wave:

Phase_Wave.mkv

Program: Phase_Wave.bas Phase_Wave.exe

This is the most obvious effect of a scanner. If it scans an animated scene, the result is a still image where events did not occur at the same time. The Time Scanner really scans the time.

In the animation at the beginning of this page, the Scanner transforms regular concentric waves into non concentric ones which are undergoing the Doppler effect. During the same process, the moving scale and clocks shrink according to Lorentz's factor g. And finally, the clocks indicate Lorentz's local time. The forward and backward wavelength is measurable thanks to the graduated scale. It is easily verifiable that instead of the regular 1 + beta and 1 – beta, the wavelength is modified according to (1 + beta) / g and (1 – beta) / g.

The longer than expected wavelength is caused by the slower frequency. Perpendicularly to the line of motion, the normal wavelength contraction according to g is canceled for the same reason. This result is consistent with Lorentz's calculus: y' = y; z' = z and additionally, it indicates that events in this moving system occur at a slower rate of time.

The scan speed.

By trial and error, one easily comes to the conclusion that a given scan speed always produces the same Doppler effect whatever the frequency. The forward vs. backward wavelength ratio is given by:

R = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta)

For example, considering that beta is 0.866 (g = 0.5), the ratio is: R = 13.928.


Let's say that V stands for the scan speed. It is a normalized speed (c = 1) so that it is given in light-seconds per second or in wavelengths per cycle. While the scanner is in front of the emitter, the waves are traveling towards it and their relative speed is V + 1. After having crossed the emitter, the scanner and the waves are moving in the same direction so that the relative speed is rather V – 1. Naturally, the goal is to obtain the same ratio R as mentioned above. One must respect the following equation;

(V + 1) / (V – 1) = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta)

Simplifying :

V = 1 / beta

The scan speed must be 1.1547 light-second in order to obtain the 13.928 forward vs. backward wavelength ratio. It should be emphasized that this speed coincides with that of the the famous "phase wave" discovered by Louis de Broglie (V = c ^ 2 / v). One may then search for the correct print speed which must produce Lorentz's local time according to –beta and Lorentz's contraction according to g. Any incorrect print speed is very easy to detect to a first approximation anyway because it produces elliptic waves.

It will be shown below that the scan speed may preferably be the same as the print speed, which is given by: g / beta. In this case, the frame of reference to be transformed (according to beta) must be moved according to the intermediate speed: alpha = (1 – g) / beta. This motion cancels the effects of the slower scan speed.

The print speed.

If the frame of reference to be transformed remains immobile, the print speed "Vp" must be slower than the scan speed in order to produce a contraction according to Lorentz's factor g.

Vp = g / beta

If beta is 0.866, the print speed must be two times (1 / g = 2) slower than the scan speed, that is to say 0.57735 light-second per second instead of 1.1547. In practice, one must choose the print speed which produces spherical waves. This method leads to Lorentz's contraction factor g without the help of Lorentz.

It should be remembered that standing waves contract. According to Michelson's calculus, the frequency does not change. In this case, standing waves contract according to Lorentz's factor g squared in the line of motion and they contract according to g (not squared) perpendicularly to the line of motion:

beta = 0.866

g = 0.5.

The contraction of the Michelson interferometer according to Michelson's calculus is too severe.

According to Lorentz, the frequency must slow down in order to avoid the transverse contraction.

Michelson was unaware of the slower frequency. This is why his calculus was wrong. Woldemar Voigt was surely on the right track because he introduced a constant in order to modify the frequency. He could elaborate an equation set whose goal was to correct the Doppler effect when applied to Maxwell's equations. Unfortunately, he could not find the exact value of the constant, which equals 1 according to Lorentz. In addition, the constant was incorrectly placed in the t' equation. Below is the corrected and inverted version of the Voigt transformations. The frequency remains unchanged on the condition that Voigt's constant equals g.


The corrected and inverted Voigt transformations.

When k = g, one obtains the regular Doppler effect without any frequency shift.

In this case, if x = 0, the t' equation simplifies to: t' = t.

The inverted Lorentz transformations.

This equation set is obviously identical to Voigt's one, except for the unnecessary constant k = 1.

The upper right symmetric equation set is Poincare's reversed one.

Woldemar Voigt was not sure how the transformations should apply. Lorentz showed in 1895 that, whatever the value of the constant might be, the Michelson interferometer should expand or contract in such a way that it should yield a null result. Apparently, it was Joseph Larmor who firstly suggested that no contraction should occur transversally, but his equations are not consistent with this assertion. As far as I know, it was Lorentz who firstly found that Voigt's constant k should be equal to 1 because this information was related in Poincare's book in 1901. However, Lorentz's work was published in 1904, well after Poincare came to the same conclusion by means of the "least action Principle".

If k = 1, the frequency of a moving emitter slows down according to g in order to cancel the orthogonal contraction. This is consistent with the Time Scanner results: no wavelength contraction occurs transversally:

y ' = y z ' = z

Programmers are well aware that a mathematical error leads to noticeable results most of the time. If a formula is incorrect, they are promptly informed of it. This is the chief advantage of a computer: equations are verified. The computer indicates that Voigt's and Lorentz's reversed equations as established above are correct because they produce a nice Doppler effect. On the contrary, they do notwork correctly in their original form because they clumsily indicate an unnecessary space-time transformation. The computer cannot handle (fortunately!) such a strange concept, actually a "mathematical artifice" whose Lorentz was well aware of. Check by yourself:


The program must apply the transformations separately to all x, y coordinates. The Time Scanner is way more efficient and versatile. It shows in a more dramatic way how waves and matter react to motion. What's more, the results are consistent with Relativity.

The point is that the Time Scanner produces a contraction which proves to be unavoidable. For example, I could show that, thanks to the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium, the parabola of a fast moving emitter must contract in order to correctly reflect the Doppler-transformed waves. The movie clip below is very clear on this fact:

Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.mkv

Matter contraction cannot be considered as an unnecessary hypothesis any longer. It is a true fact and it must be admitted right now because it is easily verifiable. By rejecting it and replacing it with space transformation, Poincare and Einstein made a serious error. The Time Scanner and the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium are powerful tools but unfortunately, they were missing at the epoch. Starting from now, thanks to them, scientists will discover more and more proofs that Lorentz was on the right track.

The amazing "alpha" speed.

Lorentz's contraction may preferably be obtained by moving the whole frame of reference according to an intermediate "alpha" speed. This speed may be considered that of a preferred frame of reference which is commonly admitted in Lorentzian Relativity. The alpha speed is the intermediate speed between zero and beta, and this is why I named it "alpha". However, because the speed scale is not a linear one, one must rely on Poincare's law of speed addition below:


In the present case, beta and beta' are equal so that the formula may be simplified. As seen from the preferred frame of reference, the two other ones are moving at the same speed but in opposite directions. As seen by the moving observers, the preferred frame of reference is moving at the alpha speed and the other one is moving at the beta speed. It will be shown below that this preferred frame of reference can be considered to be immobile with respect to the aether, making his measures for space and time becoming absolute.

The Time Scanner transforms the preferred frame of reference the way it appears as seen by the moving observers. Hence, its speed seems to be beta. The interesting point is that it will not transform unmoving matter, emitter, scale or whatever. The scale especially becomes a very reliable reference for comparing the resulting lengths. Actually, –alpha just becomes + alpha so that the scale length remains unchanged. The time t and t' also remains unchanged where x = 0, but the time shift is reversed.


The goal is to obtain the alpha speed. Poincare's formula may be simplified:

beta = (2 * alpha) / (1 + alpha ^ 2)

beta = 2 / (1 / alpha + alpha)

alpha = (1 – sqr(1 – beta ^ 2)) / beta

...integrating Lorentz's contraction factor g:

alpha = (1 – g) / beta

Lorentz's factor is given by: g = sqr(1 – beta ^ 2). Finally, the Time Scanner produces a contraction according to g because the alpha speed is calculated according to g. All frames of reference must be previously transformed according to beta – alpha. There is no need to transform the preferred frame of reference whose speed is alpha because alpha – alpha is nil.

Because the preferred frame of reference moves, the scan speed must be slowed down in order to compensate this movement. Another stunning effect of this method is that the scan speed and the print speed become equal:

V = Vp = g / beta light-second per second.

The animation in the beginning of this page was processed this way. This is why the immobile scale indicating the x and x' magnitudes does not transform. Such magnitudes become absolute and may be successfully applied to all other transformed frames of reference. One may proceed to more transformations again and again and the same scale will remain unchanged indefinitely. The space and time units become invariable. It was shown above that transverse distances never change either. Thus, the so-called "space-time" transformation appears unnecessary, if not ridiculous.

Another interesting effect of the "alpha method" is that the static graphics and text are copied to the final image without any modification, hence without artifacts. On the contrary, the slower print speed produces annoying effects and the final image is smaller than the original one.

No paradoxes any more thanks to the preferred "alpha" frame of reference.

This procedure using a preferred frame of reference which is moving at the intermediate speed alpha is more intuitive. The observer moving along with it is entitled to record and release results which are acceptable for all other observers. On the contrary, Einstein's Relativity systematically leads to "paradoxes". Contradictions, actually.

The Train and Tunnel Paradox is a good example. Let's suppose that a tunnel and a train at rest have the same length. In the eyes of an observer which is immobile with respect to the tunnel, the train moving very fast seems to be shorter. If the observer is in the train, the tunnel seems shorter instead. However, if the observer moves at the intermediate "alpha" speed, the train and the tunnel lengths do not change and clocks are ticking at the same rate. This point of view appears more acceptable for all three observers although the train or the tunnel really becomes shorter because of its absolute faster motion. The good news is that there is no space-time transformation to consider any more. The same distance and time units should preferably be adopted as a universal convention but the transposition to every other frame of reference is still necessary in order to explain the apparent effects of the Lorentz transformations.

This is why the relative speed of electrons or protons traveling in opposite directions in the Large Hadron Collider may reach nearly twice the speed of light. If the observer was moving along with them, their apparent relative speed would be nearly the speed of light only, hence two times slower. This point of view where the collider itself seems to move at the alpha speed appears less interesting, unacceptable actually.

For the same reason, our galaxy must preferably considered to be immobile. This is important in order to explain why very distant galaxies are moving away from it in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light. If our galaxy was really moving at nearly the speed of light, it would be difficult to explain why some of them are nevertheless moving that fast in the same direction as it. There is still no certitude, but an acceptable consensus which is free from space or time transformations is better than a theory leading to unexplainable paradoxes.

The Alpha Speed and Einstein's General Relativity.

The alpha speed will very likely be recognized as a major innovation. It explains Relativity without the need for transforming space and time and without being puzzled by paradoxes any more. It is the basis of two new sciences, motion mechanics and motion optics. It will lead to a comprehensive upgraded version of Lorentz's Relativity which will replace Einstein's General Relativity.

The remaining task will be to measure the effects of gravity and acceleration, which are equivalent according to Einstein. Those effects being measurable, this is no problem at all.

The important point is that the alpha speed is a real one. It is the speed of all fields of force because they are standing between two electrons or other particles and hence, between two moving pieces of matter. From this point of view, Newton's laws still hold true in spite of the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz force for example becomes much more understandable because moving electrons are oscillating slower. The addition to waves emitted by unmoving electrons produces a phase rotation which explains very well all electromagnetic phenomena.

This is indeed what the Time Scanner reveals.

The Twin Paradox.


The Time Scanner produces a picture of my moving electron by scanning spherical standing waves.

De Broglie pointed out that the time shift produces a faster than c phase wave, which becomes visible here.

The alpha speed allows one to easily explain the twin paradox because they seem to get older at the same rate as observed from an intermediate "alpha" point of view. They seem to move in opposite directions and at the same speed so that there is no unusual time effect, hence no paradox.

However, most discussions about this paradox aroused from the fact that, in order to verify their age difference without any doubt, the twins must be reunified. Then the question is: where will they meet? At least one of them must decelerate and/or accelerate and in this case his inertial frame of reference is no longer the same.

From the "alpha" point of view, though, the slower twin would definitely become older .

On se rappellera l'histoire du "bon petit diable" qui tire une cage d'ascenseur. Cet "effet d'ascenseur" est toujours très perceptible et mesurable pour tout observateur qui accélère ou qui ralentit. Au lieu de recourir à un petit diable, qui est une image empruntée à Maxwell, on peut avantageusement considérer qu'on met en marche la fusée d'un vaisseau spatial. Puisqu'on ignore la vitesse absolue, cela peut se traduire aussi bien par une accélération que par un ralentissement. Mais "l'observateur alpha" peut facilement chiffrer la modification de vitesse qui s'ensuit de son point de vue. Il peut donc chiffrer aussi les variations dans l'heure que les horloges indiquent, tout comme le vieillissement particulier du jumeau concerné.

Si les jumeaux avaient le même âge au départ d'un "référentiel privilégié alpha", je peux donc confirmer que s'ils y reviennent après avoir effectué un trajet identique selon eux et selon l'observateur alpha, ce trajet n'étant pas identique dans les faits, ils arriveront néanmoins au même moment auprès de l'observateur alpha sans constater de différence d'âge. Ça se calcule très bien en évaluant un certain nombre de possibilités dans un contexte absolu, selon Lorentz. Même si leur vitesse absolue n'est pas la même, la somme des transformations temporelles est toujours la même pour les deux.

Jusque là, il n'y a donc pas de paradoxe pour personne. Le problème, c'est que si un seul des jumeaux se déplace, les plus farouches défenseurs de la théorie d'Einstein font alors intervenir des effets temporels additionnels attribuables à l'accélération ou au ralentissement pour éviter la contradiction. Ils n'ont pas encore réalisé que ces effets sont mesurables. Un jour, on les mesurera et ils devront donc faire face à leurs erreurs.

Scanning spherical standing waves.

One can also obtain a picture of my moving electron by scanning regular spherical standing waves.

Here is a video showing how the Time Scanner can correct the Doppler effect, the time shift, the time dilation and the contraction according to Lorentz's equations. Amazingly, all this is performed in just one operation. Please note that your AVI Player may take many seconds for downloading the file, so you may prefer right click and save on your hard disk first:

The_Time_Scanner_01.avi

In this video, the Scanner cancels the Doppler effect, so it is consistent with Lorentz's original equations. However, it can rather produce a Doppler effect where there is none by reversing the scanning direction. It can even accelerate or reduce an already existing Doppler effect to a faster or slower speed. The modified system cannot reach the speed of light, which is also consistent with Relativity.

Scanning forward.

The forward direction performs the opposite effects. It is possible because the Lorentz transformations are perfectly reversible. Reversing the scan direction reverses the results the same way Henri Poincaré found for Lorentz's equations (see also below). Then the Time Scanner cancels the transformations, hence the Doppler effect, but also the contraction and the phase/time shift. So it produces exactly the same effects as Lorentz's original equations, whose purpose was to achieve Maxwell's equations invariance.

Here is a video showing this:

The_Time_Scanner_02.avi

Below is another video showing better the same phenomenon without the Scanner. Please note that Lorentz's time shift is actually a phase shift which becomes well visible if the emitter is a hoop. So the emission process begins at the rear; it is not simultaneous for a given circular wave front. This phenomenon is especially amazing.


Inversely, scanning my moving electron produces a picture of regular spherical standing waves.

On the one hand, the Time Scanner produces or corrects the Doppler effect.

On the other hand, the same procedure produces or corrects the Lorentz transformations.

This is a flawless proof that the Lorentz transformations are just a Doppler effect.

Here, a system at rest (on the left) is accelerated to 0.866 c.


The phase wave.

The time shift produces a phase wave, which was as far as I know discovered by Louis de Broglie and whose speed is 1 / beta wavelengths per period (or light seconds per second). It is clearly visible on the right part of the animation below (vertical stripes moving forward). Surprisingly, the scan line follows exactly this phase wave, where the t' time theoretically does not change. So it finally produces a picture where clocks are perfectly synchronized: they indicate the same time everywhere.

It turns out that the scan speed is actually that of the phase wave: 1 / beta wavelengths per period.

The Time Scanner can handle more complex systems.

The Time Scanner can also show the way many objects moving at different speeds and along different axes would be transformed if their frame of reference was accelerated, slowed down, stopped and even accelerated in the opposite direction. On the contrary, the Lorentz transformations can handle only one object at a time and it cannot accelerate or decelerate it from a given speed to another one.

The relativistic law of speed addition was worded by Henri Poincare in his 1901 "Electricity and optics" book, well before Einstein did. Because the Time Scanner never produces faster than light speeds, it also perfectly handles the relativistic law of speed addition. So it can accelerate the moving gear below again and again and despite this, it will never reach the speed of light.


Here is how an accelerated rotating wheel and its different gear systems would look like.

The Time Scanner also performs the law of speed addition, where the speed of light is never attained.

Lorentz's equations cannot handle so many transformations simultaneously.

Einstein's Relativity is totally useless here because it leads to many paradoxes, not to say contradictions.

For example, Ehrenfest's paradox is no longer relevant because moving matter contracts, not space.

MR. SERGE CABALA'S ANIMATIONS

Here is the link to Mr. Cabala's web page:

http://ondes-relativite.info/

There is a very interesting animation there showing a piston machine with its fly wheel. It seems distorted in a rather strange way, but it is correct because the Time Scanner would also produce this result. This indicates that Mr. Cabala fully understands the Lorentz transformations. By 1975, he was the first person on this planet to speak about matter's unique wave nature. He also showed that Lorentz's Relativity is consistent with the aether.

RULING OUT ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES

Woldemar Voigt showed in 1887 that the Doppler effect could be cancelled using a transformation equation set very similar to Lorentz's. Voigt, Lorentz and Poincaré were all using Maxwell's equations. So most scientists linked the Lorentz transformations to any "electromagnetic" phenomena.

In addition, Poincare rejected Lorentz's theory about matter contraction. As soon as 1901, in his book "Electricity and Optics", he pointed out that it looked much like a strange "coup de pouce" (a helping hand) from Nature. This did not satisfy him. His own idea was that optical phenomena behave according to the relative motion of matter present. In his picture, there is no preferred frame of reference any more. This is clearly identical to Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity and it should be emphasized that it was published in 1901.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | You are here. | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Poincare's famous "coup de pouce" from in his 1901 book "Electricity and optics".

However, scientists should realize today that matter really contracts because it exhibits wave properties. There is no "coup de pouce" any more. Let's be clear: Poincaré was wrong. He was a fantastic mathematician, but one can nevertheless find in his works many surprising, indeed disputable thoughts about physics. It is also a well known fact that Einstein was well aware of Poincare's ideas from 1901 to 1905. In spite of that, he wrote his own 1905 paper without any reference to him and "his" theory finally triumphed.

All physicists in radio-electricity know that Maxwell's equations lead to unbelievably complex calculus. Poincare's 1901 book is especially exhaustive. However, it turns out that Maxwell's equations are totally useless here. The scanner procedure shows that the Lorentz transformations also work with regular waves, not just with Maxwell's equations. The Lorentz transformations are simply linked to the Doppler effect.

This is of the utmost importance.

My page on standing waves shows that they undergo the Lorentz transformations. This seems to have been discovered by Mr. Yuri Ivanov. He also used this property to explain matter contraction, but unfortunately he used his own Ivanov's transformations (1981) which coincide with Michelson's incorrect calculus. Mr. Ivanov nevertheless performed two significant, indeed brilliant steps towards the truth. The rest of his work about "rhythmodynamics" and antigravity appears rather weird, though.

Matter transforms because it acts and reacts using waves. Such interactions and forces also undergo the Doppler effect. So they must also undergo the Lorentz transformations, and this leads to Relativity.

On the one hand, matter waves and force waves should transform the way Lorentz discovered.

On the second hand, Relativity is definitely true and it involves the Lorentz transformations.

One should draw the following conclusion:

Relativity strongly indicates that matter is made of waves.

Gabriel LaFreniere,



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update January 18, 2010.


LORENTZIAN RELATIVITY

Page 1

Relativity is surprisingly simple.

It just requires elementary mathematical operations.

However, it also requires reasonable knowledge of the Lorentz Transformations.

This is why the above diagram should help.

THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS

The original Lorentz transformations were intended to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations in a moving frame of reference. Lorentz and Poincare used them in order to recover the moving electron the way it appears in a stationary frame of reference. However, one may reverse Lorentz's equations (actually Poincare's simpler set using c = 1 and beta = v / c) to obtain the opposite effect:

x' = g x + b t

t' = g t – b x

y' = y z' = z

b (beta) = v / c = 0.5

g (contraction) = Sqr(1 – b ^ 2) = 0.866

This reversed equation set is much more easy to deal with because it yields exactly what Lorentz had in mind in 1904. See for yourself:

x' = g x + b t

http://glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm

1 – Matter undergoes a contraction in accordance with g x. The normal A to A' distance being ten light-seconds, the B to B' distance below is 0.866 * 10 = 8.66 light-seconds instead. The 8 x 8 light-second squares transform into 8 x 6.9 rectangles, and circles transform to squashed ellipses. The contraction also applies to distances between pieces of matter for mechanical reasons.

2 – Matter moves from g x to g x + b t. This is merely a translation motion, that is to say Galileo's transformation which leads to his well known Relativity Principle: x' = x – v t, the reversed equation being: x = x' + v t or x' = x + v t as well.

3 – Clocks display slower seconds in accordance with: t' = g t. Below, g = 0.866 so that clocks are displaying 8.66 slower seconds after a 10 second delay (.866 * 10 = 8.66).

4 – Clocks display a time shift in accordance with: – b x. Below, b (beta) = .5, so that the B' clock exhibits a –5 second time shift with respect to B according to –0.5 * 10.

Knowing that, one can easily compare the two systems A-A' and B-B' below:

Observers A and B adjust their clock to t = t' = 0 when they meet.

Observer B' then tries to synchronize his clock according to B, but the procedure ends up with a –5 second time shift.

Observers B and B' try to maintain a 10 light-second distance to each other but the resulting distance is rather 8.66 light-seconds.

Now, let's examine the situation after a 20 second delay:

t' = g t – b x


Because observer B truly moves at 0.5 c, he is now meeting exactly A' whose distance to A is 10 light-seconds.

Because clock B ticks slower, it displays only: g * t = 17.32 seconds instead of 20 seconds.

Observer B is unaware of the contraction. Additionally, he erroneously observes that A and A' are moving backward at 0.5 c.

B erroneously observes that clock A is ticking slower so that it now seems to display: g * 17.32 = 15 seconds.

Because he is meeting A', B observes that the apparently slower clock A' exhibits a + 5 second time shift (15 + 5 = 20 sec).

B thinks that his own clock indicates 17.3 seconds because apparently, the A to A' distance is only 8.66 light-seconds.

Observer B comes to the conclusion that he is stationary and that A and A' are transformed and moving leftward at 0.5 c.

Because his measures are correct, observer A also comes to the conclusion that he is stationary and that B and B' are moving.

Below is a video which reproduces more clearly the scene shown above. It should be helpful in order to understand why observer B especially is fooled by the Lorentz transformations.

Lorentz_Transformations.mkv

Lorentz's reversed equations.

You may doubt my equations, which is advisable. One must firstly be aware that Henri Poincare discovered Relativity well before Einstein and that he was a superb mathematician. He could simplify Lorentz's equations (Woldemar Voigt's ones, actually) as soon as 1901. Here is a copy from his French book "Electricity and Optics":

Poincare could simplify Woldemar Voigt's equations as shown above, but Voigt's useless constant "l" is still present.

In the end, nobody can say for sure which one is moving.

This phenomenon is all about Lorentz's Relativity.

Why make things so complicated?


This is a transposition by Christian Marchal using more modern notation such as the gamma factor and the beta normalized speed.

By comparison, Lorentz original equations appear quite obscure.

The first equation may be simplified to: x' = (x – v t) / g and Voigt's useless constant is absent.

Unfortunately, this equation set creates a new "space-time" frame of reference which is incompatible with the first one.

Lorentz found that Voigt's constant was useless because its value should be 1. This constant being eliminated, Lorentz's first equation simplifies to:

According to Lorentz : x' = (x – v t) / g

According to Poincare : x' = gamma (x – b t)

The unknown variable being x, Poincare's equation must be rearranged like this:

x = x' / gamma + b t

Then Lorentz's contraction factor g, which is given by 1 / gamma, may replace the gamma factor:

x = g x' + b t

And finally, because x and t should obviously stand for the unmoving system variables, one must swap x and x':

The same process applied to the time equation leads to:

Thus, and this is true even for Einstein's Relativity, x' for the moving observer B' shown above is 18.66 light-seconds, and t' is 12.32 seconds after a 20 second delay (x = 10, t = 20, beta = 0.5, g = 0.866):

x' = g x + b t = (0.866 * 10) + (0.5 * 20) = 18.66 light-seconds.

t' = g t – b x = (0.866 * 20) – (0.5 * 10) = 12.32 seconds.

What is remarkable is that all those variables (x, x'; t, t') along with the sign (– instead of +) are fully reversible in order to retrieve the initial x and t variables. This amazing reciprocity was Poincare's discovery, who used it in 1904 in order to establish his Relativity Postulate:

x = g x' – b t' = 10 light-seconds.

t = g t' + b x' = 20 seconds.

x' = g x + b t

t' = g t – b x


Lorentz's version also works on the condition that x and x' are swapped (hence using t, not t'):

x = (x' – b t) / g = 10 secondes-lumière.

It should be pointed out that these new inverted equations are mainly intended to transform a stationary emitter into a moving one. This produces a Doppler effect. In this case, the Cartesian coordinates x, y et z stand for wavelength and the t variable stands for the wave period in 2 * pi units. Their purpose is definitely not to transform space and time. The original version was supposed to correct the Doppler effect instead, and this is exactly what Woldemar Voigt had in mind in 1887.

However, it becomes clear that Voigt's initial equations were wrong for many reasons. His constant was discarded by Lorentz, but it may still be useful in order to obtain the normal Doppler effect. In this case, its value equals g and it should divide the product g * t in the t' equation, not multiply it (compare Poincare's version above to my version below). It was a serious error. In addition, one must use the plus sign for the x equation and the minus sign for the t' one, yet this may be just an anomaly related to Maxwell's equations. And finally, because the x and t variables stand for the moving system coordinates, the original equation set creates an unnecessary and incompatible new frame of reference. Below is the corrected and inverted equation set:

This is Woldemar Voigt's revisited equation set.

It remains useful because it can produce a variable Doppler effect where the frequency is adjustable.

In the case of the normal Doppler effect, the k constant equals g and the frequency is unchanged.

In the case of light and radio waves, the k constant value is 1 and the frequency is slowed down according to g.

Consequently, any Doppler effect involving light or radio waves such as those emitted by a satellite supposes that the frequency is slower according to g, unless it is corrected afterwards. It is undoubtedly a relativistic effect. For example, if the observer is traveling inside the satellite, he is totally unable to detect the Doppler effect in spite of the fact that it is easily detectable on the earth's surface. This occurs because he himself is transformed according to Lorentz.

It is about the Doppler effect.

Those facts are undisputable. Lorentz's formulas just produce or correct a Doppler effect. And because they were wrongly used as a mathematical artifice whose effect was to transform space and time, I had to correct them. The equation set shown below is simply about a special Doppler effect involving a slower frequency. It just transforms the wavelength and the wave period, not space and time. It is not a theory, is is a fact which is easily verifiable on any emitter surrounded by spherical waves.

I wrote a program showing this:

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.bas Doppler _Voigt_transformations.exe

I did not remove Voigt's constant and hence, you have a choice of four different frequencies. You may press A, B, C or D to change the value of the constant. In Lorentz's version the k =1 constant does not appear any more. In this case, one obtains y' = y and z' = z, and the emitter frequency slows down according to g so that there is no transverse wavelength contraction. Please examine the source code to verify that I am really using my own version of Voigt's equations.

This is why I propose that Lorentz's equations should be corrected as below. The reversed set on the right was obtained using Poincare's method:

The Lorentz Transformations revisited.

The x et x' variables apply to the same Cartesian frame of reference, which remains stationary.


Please bear in mind that this reversed equation set yields totally new results.

Strangely, those new results are still consistent with those predicted by Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein.

As a matter of fact, they all predicted that a moving material body should appear shorter according to g * x.

It should also move according to beta * t. Thus, the equation x' = g x + b t is no surprise.

And finally, Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein also told us that a moving clock should tick slower according to: g * t.

The accurate time shift according to –beta * x or –v * x / c^2 was Lorentz's discovery.

In spite of that, nobody ever proposed those equations up to now. This is weird.

The Time Scanner performs even better.

Please examine this small video which I very proud of. It is honestly amazing. It contains a lot of information showing that Lorentz's version of Relativity (1904) was correct.

Time_Scanner.mkv

It is a high definition (1280 x 720) Mpeg-4 video using the now well accepted H-264 standard (Divx-7 .mkv Matroska file). I suggest VLC Media Player and the whole bunch of CCCP codecs (unrelated to the USSR!) which includes a free version of Zoom Player, also an excellent player. Below is the FreeBasic program which produced the images.

WaveMechanics07.bas

My Time Scanner is capable of accelerating the whole system where emitters and material bodies are moving at different speeds, on condition that they are already transformed. Here, it is accelerated to 50% of the speed of light to the right. However, C and C' are already moving to the right at this speed, and hence their new speed should be the speed of light. But Lorentz and Poincare discovered that no material body is capable of reaching the speed of light. This is why their resulting speed is only .8 c, according to Poincare's law of speed addition which is given by:


In my opinion, such a magnificent harmony should leave nobody unfeeling. Now, thanks to Lorentz, Relativity can be explained. There are no paradoxes any more. All is clear and logical.

On the one hand, it becomes possible to display more than two material bodies (hundreds, actually) whose speed and direction may differ. The results remain perfectly coherent after the scanning process, or the acceleration if you prefer.

On the other hand, a preferred stationary frame of reference may be designated as a convention. It should allow all observers to have a better image of their situation. Ideally, it is the one whose speed is intermediate, for instance the red scale as seen from A and B. Surprisingly, this red scale does not transform because its intermediate speed (not exactly .25 c because of Poincare's law of speed addition) is simply inverted after undergoing the acceleration. Its speed being the same, its contraction remains the same, so that A and B can adjust its length when they meet (they must consider that they are moving in opposite directions at the same speed). They can also adjust its clock rate so that it stubbornly displays the "absolute" time on condition that is is placed where x = 0 when A and B meet and on condition that they synchronize all clocks according to t = 0 when they meet, too. The time shift is inverted everywhere else because the red scale is stopped, then accelerated at the same speed in the opposite direction.

All becomes perfectly clear. The red scale length does not change and the clock displays the absolute time on condition that A and B, A and C, or B and C (two of them only) designate an intermediate one as a preferred Cartesian frame of reference. Thus, there exists a situation in which space and time remain constant. To put it even more clearly, as Euclid, Galileo, Descartes and Newton always thought, space and time do not transform.

In practice, Einstein's theory of Relativity appears inapplicable. Establishing a preferred frame of reference is advantageous. The present demonstration indicates that many of them are possible but that some of them are much better. Only Lorentz's version of Relativity allows such a choice. It should be pointed out that all this cannot be explained without the presence of the aether. Even if it cannot be detected, all happens as if it exists. It is imperative that the speed of light is related to it.

The Lorentz transformations indicate that all this happens solely because of the Doppler effect. This strongly suggests that matter is undergoing the Doppler effect. Matter behaves like waves do. Lorentz's Relativity indicates that matter consists of waves propagating at the speed of light. Such waves need a medium, the aether, so that finally, our material world is nothing but the aether...

It turns out that the Lorentz transformations are leading us well beyond Relativity. Now, we are dealing with matter mechanics, more accurately the Wave Mechanics.

The conclusion is that Newton's laws as well as all physical phenomena descriptions must be upgraded in order to conform with the Wave Mechanics.

LORENTZIAN RELATIVITY IS THE ONLY CORRECT ONE

The goal of this page is to show that Lorentz's Relativity is easily explainable. It becomes possible to show why such phenomena are possible. Unfortunately, Lorentz never released a complete version of his ideas like Einstein did. More or less recently, many authors


According to Lorentz, x' and t' are only auxiliary quantities introduced with the aid of a mathematical trick.

The variable t only can be considered as the "true time".

THE SCIENCE OF ILLUSION

tried to promote them but they frequently deviate into erratic opinions such as faster-than-light speeds. They obviously forget that Lorentz himself found that inertia, and hence matter mass increases according to its speed in such a way that it would be infinite at the speed of light.

This is why I am explaining Lorentz version of Relativity the way he himself would have done. As far as I know, this page is fully compatible with Lorentz's ideas, at least around 1904. It is by no means revolutionary.

It should be emphasized that Lorentz never doubted the existence of an aether until his death, which occurred in 1928, and hence many years after Einstein's theory triumphed. Unlike Poincare, he was sure that there should exist a preferred frame of reference. He was convinced that matter truly contracts and that moving clocks are displaying slower seconds along with a "local time". Such clocks cannot show the "true time".

To put it clearer, Lorentz never proposed an absurd "space-time" transformation. Poincare was much less rigorous. He rejected matter contraction. He thought that optical phenomena were only relative and he wrote that Lorentz's hypothesis was not satisfactory. He even wrote that the aether might some day be considered useless.

Below are two quotes from Lorentz which were written several years after 1904. They indicate that Lorentz had finally given up his previous concept and accepted much of Poincare's and Einstein's ideas. However, they are very clear on Lorentz's 1904 theory:

I had not thought of the straight path leading to them, since I considered there was an essential difference between the reference systems x, y, z, t and x', y', z', t'. In one of them were used - such was my reasoning - coordinate axes with a definite position in ether and what could be termed true time; in the other, on the contrary, one simply dealt with auxiliary quantities introduced with

the aid of a mathematical trick.

The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity.

Relativity is all about mystification where the Doppler effect hides from our eyes what is really going on. This can easily be explained on the condition that matter and fields of force are made of standing waves, and that all forces such as light and gravity are also caused by waves.

Clearly, any moving wave system should undergo the Doppler effect. However it is not that simple because the regular Doppler effect is asymmetric. For example, a bell moving at beta = sin 30° = .5 times the speed of sound emits sound waves which are lengthened backward less than they are compressed forward:

The forward wavelength is: 1 – beta = .5 time shorter.

The backward wavelength is: 1 + beta = 1.5 times longer.

Additionally, in the presence of a strong wind or in a moving frame of reference such as a train platform, additional effects occur because the observer is moving with respect to air. He may use a moving source and a moving screen in order to produce standing waves and check for the first node position (this is called the Hertz test).

Then the transverse wavelength and the transverse standing wave pattern are:

g = cos 30° = sqr(1 – beta ^ 2) = .866 time shorter.

However, the moving axial standing wave pattern is:

g ^ 2 = .75 time shorter.

Thus the difference allows the moving observer to detect his speed as compared to the wave medium. But this is no longer possible for matter or forces such as gravity and light because Lorentz's Doppler effect is perfectly symmetrical.

The point is that any periodic phenomenon slows down at high speed in accordance with the contraction factor: g = sqr(1 – beta^2). This was well established by Hendrick A. Lorentz in 1904. More particularly, the electron frequency slows down according to g:


The electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor.

This phenomenon alone causes the Lorentz transformations and explains Relativity.

Surprisingly, the frequency reduction produces a perfectly symmetric Doppler effect as seen by an unmoving observer. As compared to waves in an unmoving system, the contraction forward and the dilation backward occur according to the same ratio.

Let us suppose that the velocity of a complex wave system such as the electron is half of the speed of light, so that beta = .5 and g = .866. The forward or backward frequency ratio is R = (1 + beta) / g = 1.732.

The forward wavelength is: (1 – beta) / g = 1 / R = .577 time shorter.

The backward wavelength is: (1 + beta) / g = R = 1.732 times longer.

The transverse wavelength is: g / g = 1 (finally unchanged).

The transverse standing wave pattern is: g / g = 1 (finally unchanged).

The moving axial standing wave pattern is: g ^ 2 / g = g = .866 time shorter.

The axial standing wave node and antinode pattern becomes g = .866 shorter instead of g squared = .75. The point is that the electron is made of standing waves. It is a well known fact that the 8-electron atomic external layer radius, which is responsible for chemical binding, is linked to a given wavelength. This explains why molecules, hence matter, undergo an axial contraction according to g only instead of g squared.

Please note the incredible symmetry: 1 / 1.732 = .577 and inversely, 1 / .577 = 1.732 according to the Doppler ratio R = (1 + beta) / g = 1.732 > 1.

Detecting relative motion only.

On the one hand, this symmetry requires the observer to use the same R ratio for the redshift and the blueshift from matter or galaxies moving away from him or towards him (albeit the blueshift rarely occurs). On the other hand, the results would be exactly the same if the galaxy was rather stationary and if the observer was moving away from it or towards it. Whatever the situation, he does not have a choice any more. In both cases, he must use the formula below (lambda stands for wavelength as measured in his frame of reference) in order to establish the galaxy's beta velocity.

Thus, he will obtain only the relative velocity, which is given by:

Considering those results, the observer should be aware that this galaxy could stand perfectly still as well. He himself would rather be moving away at .866 c and, in this case, his whole environment would be transformed according to Lorentz. Especially, clocks would run two times slower; in this example they would display just .5 second instead of one absolute second.

The light waves emitted by the unmoving galaxy are free from any frequency reduction and any Doppler effect, but the moving observer experiences the virtual Doppler effect according to f ' = f (1 – beta) = .13397 time the original frequency. Additionally, his clocks indicate slower hours and the recorded frequency will seem to be .13397 / .5 = .26794 as compared to the original and absolute one, hence a perfectly identical and symmetric redshift ratio: R = 1 / .26794 = 3.732.

So, simply because the electron frequency slows down at high speed, the blueshift vs. redshift ratio can no longer inform the observer whether he is moving or not. Actually, both the observer and the galaxy are most likely to be moving with respect to the aether, but their absolute velocity can never be established. Whatever the situation, recorded data indicates relative velocity only.

F' = g F


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | You are here. | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Hundreds of examples.

One may carefully examine a lot of experiments where Lorentz's Relativity holds true. The list below is not exhaustive. Fortunately, they do not require complicated formulas and so many successful demonstrations as a whole finally builds a solid proof that Lorentz was right.

1. The absence of transverse contraction prevents the observer from detecting his absolute motion.

2. The radar echoes simulate or dissimulate the axial contraction.

3. The clock synchronization procedure ends up with a time shift.

4. The absolute motion causes the slowing down of all mechanisms.

5. The contraction cannot be detected by any means such as optical imaging or triangulation.

6. The speed of light seems to be the same in all frames of reference.

7. There are no means to detect that clocks are running slower.

8. The Michelson interferometer cannot detect its absolute motion because it undergoes a contraction.

9. The beam splitter angle must match the interferometer contraction in order to reflect correctly the light beam.

10. Bradley's stellar aberration cannot reveal the Earth's absolute motion.

11. The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern cannot reveal the absolute motion.

12. Light undergoes a symmetrical Doppler effect, so that relative motion only can be detected.

13. Any speed beyond the speed of light is impossible.

14. The relative speed between two material bodies may approach twice the speed of lignt.

15. Standing waves contract according to Lorentz on the condition that the frequency also slows down according to Lorentz.

16. Lorentzian Relativity remains consistent in the presence of an unlimited number of material bodies.

17. There is no General Relativity because gravity is not linked to Relativity.

18. The Lorentz transformations lead to Relativity but they also extend well beyond it.

This will be examined in the next page.

Gabriel LaFreniere,





LORENTZIAN RELATIVITY

Page 2

Relativity is surprisingly simple.

It just requires elementary mathematical operations.

However, it also requires reasonable knowledge of the Lorentz Transformations.

This is why the above diagram should help.

So many experiments.

The goal of the previous page was to expose the real effects of the Lorentz transformations, that is to say: a length contraction, a local time, and a slower behavior. Because of these, a moving observer cannot find out whether or not he is moving with respect to the aether. This is called Lorentzian Relativity.

One may now carefully examine these many experiments where Lorentz's Relativity holds true. Fortunately, they do not require complicated formulas. So many flawless demonstrations put together finally builds solid proof that Lorentz was right.

1. The absence of transverse contraction prevents the observer from detecting his absolute motion.

2. The radar echoes simulate or dissimulate the axial contraction.

3. The clock synchronization procedure ends up with a time shift.

4. The absolute motion causes the slowing down of all mechanisms.

5. The contraction cannot be detected by any means such as optical imaging or triangulation.

6. The speed of light seems to be the same in all frames of reference.

7. There are no means to detect that clocks are running slower.

8. The Michelson interferometer cannot detect its absolute motion because it undergoes a contraction.

9. The beam splitter angle must match the interferometer contraction in order to reflect correctly the light beam.

10. Bradley's stellar aberration cannot reveal the Earth's absolute motion.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_relativity2.htm

1. THE ABSENCE OF TRANSVERSE CONTRACTION PREVENTS THE OBSERVER TO FINDING OUT HIS ABSOLUTE

SPEED.

11. The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern cannot reveal the absolute motion.

12. Light undergoes a symmetrical Doppler effect, so that relative motion only can be detected.

13. Any speed beyond the speed of light is impossible.

14. The relative speed between two material bodies may approach twice the speed of lignt.

15. Standing waves contract according to Lorentz on the condition that the frequency also slows down according to Lorentz.

16. Lorentzian Relativity remains consistent in the presence of an unlimited number of material bodies.

17. There is no General Relativity because gravity is not linked to Relativity.

18. The Lorentz transformations lead to Relativity but they also extend well beyond it.

The list is not exhaustive. For example, it is a well known fact that the Doppler effect is not perceivable if both the emitter and the observer are moving along in the same frame of reference, which is the case most of the time. Such elementary propositions do not need further analysis. One may also imagine very complex ones, yet so elaborate that adding these to the list would only add confusion. It's better to keep things simple.

Below is a video which reproduces more clearly the scene shown above. It should be helpful in understanding why observer B in particular is fooled by the Lorentz transformations.

Lorentz_Transformations.mkv

Pay attention to the radio signal emitted by B. It is represented by the red circle growing at the speed of light. Naturally, its center remains stationary with respect to the aether. Upon reception of the signal, observer B' emits a new signal (the green circle) towards B who finally receives it.

On the one hand, the recorded delay apparently indicates that the distance to B' is 10 light-seconds. On the other hand, the same signal also indicates that the B' clock is perfectly synchronized because it includes the time when B' emitted it.

However, the correct distance is 8.66 light-seconds instead and additionally, a 5 second time shift occurred as a result of this clock synchronization procedure. B is wrong because of the Lorentz transformations. Attempts to verify his absolute speed always fail. Absolute motion is unverifiable.

The electron is made of standing waves. If it moves, its waves contract on the translation axis, but they don't on transverse y and z axes. This is consistent with the Lorentz transformations:

y' = y

z' = z

Because the electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's g factor, its transverse wavelength remains unchanged at any speed in such a way that matter, which is made of electrons, never contracts transversally. Transverse distances do not contract either because all transverse forces responsible for matter mechanics remain stable too. It is also the case for light and radio waves because they are emitted by electrons.

Consequently, the observer can no longer find out his velocity with respect to the aether by observing changes in transverse distances, transverse light wavelength or transverse forces. This is a very rare case where direct and flawless comparison is possible between two systems whose speed differ. So let us examine this interesting situation.

Please note that both y and z are transverse axes.

Observers A and B are stationary with respect to the aether.


2. THE RADAR ECHOES SIMULATE OR DISSIMULATE THE AXIAL CONTRACTION.

Motion for A' and B' is parallel to the orthogonal x axis (not visible on this plane).

The distance is the same for both systems: one light-second or 300 000 km (186,000 miles).

A, A' and B, B' may come very close together and act like a measuring rod.

There is no time shift on this plane, so they can simultaneously check that no contraction occurs.

Because wavefronts are tilted according to the theta angle on the moving transverse plane including A' and B' on the above diagram, light or radio waves seem to propagate more slowly according to g. However, the time needed for a radio signal to travel a transverse distance follows exactly the slower hours according to g:

The waves' traveling time along a transverse axis is: 1 / g slower.

Surprisingly, if A' and B' want to check the distance between each other using a radar or a radio signal, they obtain the correct value in spite of two serious errors. Their clocks display slower seconds but the radio signal velocity is also slower according to the same g factor. Thus they can still verify that the distance to the opposite moving observer is one light-second. They can also measure y or z distances correctly using radio wavelength absolute units because transverse wavelength never changes.

So the very first condition for Relativity to be true is the absence of transverse contraction. Otherwise, A and B would clearly observe that A' and B' are nearer while A' and B' would instead observe that A and B are more distant. There would be no reciprocity any more and their absolute speed with respect to the aether would become measurable. However, Lorentz and Poincaré were not aware that matter is made of waves. They had to laboriously use Maxwell's equations. So they wrote page upon page of equations on magnetic fields, electric fields, permittivity, permeability, light propagating through dielectrics. They had to explain the Fizeau experiment, the Michelson experiment, Bradley's stellar aberration, etc.

The point is that they were not fully aware that they were just dealing with the Doppler effect. This is quite surprising because they were studying how electromagnetic waves should behave in the presence of motion. What's more, the standing wave contraction phenomenon was totally unknown in 1900. It was discovered by Mr. Ivanov around 1990 only. But they succeeded anyway.

Poincaré wrote that, using the "least action principle", he finally found that Voigt's constant should be equal to 1. But he very clearly adds in two different books that Lorentz had already found this equality using the "trial and error method" (par tâtonnements). The Lorentz transformations are just a special case of Voigt's equations where the constant k is 1 and where the slower frequency leads to the absence of transverse contraction. So this useless and bulky constant could be removed and Lorentz's equation set became simpler.

Instead of Voigt's y' = k y; z' = k z, Lorentz found that y' = y; z' = z, which means that matter does not contract transversally.

Things are getting worse when observers B and B' below try to measure the distance between each other using light or radio signals.

Observer B receives the radar echo (the green circle) after 20 slow seconds according to his clock.

This 20 second delay erroneously indicates that the distance to B' is 10 light-seconds.

The radar echo dissimulates the contracted distance, which is only: 20.21 – 11.55 = 8.66 light-seconds.

The Lorentz transformations for observer B :


3. THE CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION PROCEDURE ENDS UP WITH A TIME SHIFT

x' = g x + b t = (0.866 * 0) + (0.5 * 23.1) = 11.55 light-seconds.

t' = g t – b x = (0.866 * 23.1) – (0.5 * 0) = 20 slow seconds.

The Lorentz transformations for observer B' :



The problem is that they are fooled for three different reasons. Firstly, they think that they are stationary. Secondly, they are unaware that their clocks display slower seconds. And thirdly, the mean speed of a radar signal on a round trip is slower according to g squared (see No. 4 below).

Let's suppose that observer B wants to make sure that the distance to B' is 10 light-seconds. The radar is the most accurate instrument for this. The radar signal is emitted exactly when he meets A so that their clocks are synchronized to 0 second. In a stationary system, the delay for a 20 light-second total distance should be 20 seconds. However, because B and B' are moving, the distance is actually: 2 * 8.66 = 17.32 light-seconds. The mean speed of the radar signal is also slower according to g squared = 0.75 c. The time for the radar signal to perform the round trip is: 17.32 / 0.75 = 23.09 absolute seconds. And finally, the B clock which runs more slowly records 0.866 * 23.09 = 20 slow seconds.

Amazingly, the delay is 20 seconds in both frames of reference. Such a result apparently confirms Einstein's postulate:

"The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference."

Let's put it clearly: the speed of light is not the same in all inertial frames of reference. It indeed appears to be constant, but it is an illusion leading to a mystification. B is now quite sure that the distance to B' is 10 light-seconds, but he is definitely wrong because the slower radar echo together with the slower seconds hides the contraction.

Simulating the contraction.

Inversely, the radar echo may simulate the contraction as well. If observer B measures the A to A' distance, he faces a similar trap. A and A' are stationary with respect to the aether and hence, the speed of a radar signal between them is truly the speed of light. That is why the delay between the two echoes is obviously 20 seconds for a 10 light-second distance. All observers must be positioned on the displacement axis. Now, suppose that B is moving away from A and A'. Then the virtual Doppler effect increases the delay according to: 1 + beta = 1.5 so that it is instead: 20 * 1.5 = 30 seconds. Moreover, the B clock will record : 30 * 0.866 = 25.98 slower seconds.

This is what really happens, but B considers that A and A' are moving away from him. He must interpret this result his own way. Because they are moving away, he expects that the radar delay will be longer according to the Doppler effect, that is to say: 1 + beta = 1.5. He is entitled to presume that the delay is: 25.98 / 1.5 = 17.32 seconds instead. This result indicates that the A to A' distance is only: 17.32 / 2 = 8.66 light-seconds. If B was moving in the opposite direction, the Doppler effect would be reversed according to: 1 – beta = 0.5 and his conclusion would be the same: the A to A' distance is contracted.

In addition, B observes that his clock indicates 17.32 seconds when he meets A'. Because he thinks that A and A' are moving at half of the speed of light, this additional verification confirms that the A to A' distance is 8.66 light-seconds. In spite of two carefully conducted verifications, B is wrong. Once again, he is fooled because this time, the radar simulates the Lorentz contraction.

Amazingly, B observes that the A-A' system is contracted and that his own B-B' system is not. A and B are unable to reach consensus by comparing their situation because their observations are perfectly symmetric. It becomes impossible to determine who is really moving with respect to the aether. Those phenomena seem relative, but actually they are absolute. Clearly, A observes the situation correctly but B is totally wrong. There is no symmetry.

Train and tunnel paradox.

The train and tunnel paradox was one of Einstein's unsolvable problems. Thanks to Lorentzian Relativity, which postulates that the ether exists and that the Lorentz transformations really transform matter, one may easily solve the paradox by elementary calculation. The answer is:

The train or the tunnel may be longer, but who knows which one?

The point is that both situations are not possible simultaneously. Only one observer is recording the situation correctly while the other one is fooled. Knowing that, there is no paradox any more. Incertitude remains, though.

As seen above, observer B could synchronize his clock according to A when he met him on the same coordinate: x = x' = 0; t = t' = 0. The distance between each other being negligible, the Doppler effect is no longer fooling him.

At this very moment, observer B transmits a signal to B' in order to inform him that the time was reset to zero second. Because he erroneously measured that the distance to B is 10 light-seconds, B' adjusts his clock to 10 seconds upon reception of the signal (he thinks that the B clock should now display 10 seconds because of the delay). However, a problem arises because the signal speed is reduced to: 1 – beta = 0.5 c if the signal is emitted forward. It is a mere consequence of the Doppler effect or more exactly, of his displacement. Thus, the actual time delay is: t = 8.66 / (1 – 0.5) = 17.33 seconds but B' is totally unaware of this anomaly.


Again, note that for observer B, x = 0 while for B' it is x = 10 instead. We also found that t = 17.33 when B' receives the signal from B. Knowing this, the Lorentz reversed equations allow us to obtain the new x' position for B and B'. We will also find what time their clocks are displaying:

Observer B:



Observer B':



These results are displayed in the image below. The B clock is ticking slower seconds and hence the correct time t = 17.33 was reduced to 15 seconds. The interesting point is that B' is receiving the signal from B (represented by the red curve below) at this very moment. B' adjusts his own clock to 10 seconds as explained above. That is why his clock will permanently display a –5 second time shift (according to : – beta * x = – 0.5 * 10) with respect to B.

Please note that B' does what appears to be the correct thing to do. The equation simply predicts his incorrect behavior and the time t' is obviously incorrect. This is consistent with Lorentz's opinion in 1904: "My local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity". And because this calculus is based on the Doppler effect and on the existence of the aether, it proves to be a spectacular argument in favor of Lorentz's Relativity.

When B' receives the synchronization signal (the red curve), the absolute time according to A and A' is 17.33 seconds.

The B clock shows 15 slow seconds instead: 17.33 * 0.866 = 15.

However, B' adjusts his clock to 10 seconds so that a permanent –5 second time shift takes place with respect to B.

Please note that unlike the t' slower time, all x and x' coordinates are absolute.

They are referring to a Cartesian frame of reference which is stationary with respect to the aether.

When B' receives the signal, he immediately emits another one towards B in order to inform him that his clock was adjusted to 10 seconds. This signal is represented by the green curve shown below, which is finally received by B after 23.1 absolute seconds or 20 slow seconds. It is well known that the signal duration on a round trip (17.32 light-seconds here) is increased according to 1 / g^2: 17.32 / 0.866^2 = 23.1. Then, thanks to my reversed formulas, it becomes possible to verify that the B clock must show 20 seconds while the B' one shows 15 seconds instead, which is consistent with the –5 second time shift.


4. MECHANISMS IN MOTION RUN MORE SLOWLY.

Observer B :



Observer B':



On the one hand, observer B has timed that the total duration was 20 seconds, which apparently confirms that the distance to B' is 10 light-seconds. However, the correct distance is 8.66 light-seconds. On the other hand, the signal from B' appears to confirm that the B' clock is perfectly synchronized with his own clock because its duration was apparently 10 seconds. But it is not.

According to B and B', all happens as though they were perfectly stationary with respect to the aether. There is no evidence that a Doppler effect occurred because of three superimposed effects: the contraction, the slower clocks and the time shift. Finally, because A and A' are aware that they might have been fooled in the same manner, none of all those observers can say for sure which one is truly stationary.

Lorentz's Relativity is absolutely fantastic!

Speaking about time dilation is ridiculous. The clock mechanism runs more slowly instead. All mechanisms run more slowly according to their velocity with respect to the aether because their individual parts must travel an increased absolute distance.

The cause of such a displacement is the radiation pressure exerted by waves incoming from fields of force, which are made of standing waves undergoing the Doppler effect. The speed of all those waves, including light and radio waves, is constant with respect to the aether. The goal is to figure out by how much their absolute individual displacement is increased, in order to estimate the time needed for the waves to travel the resulting longer distance. This was Michelson's great idea. He actually discovered that the traveling time should be longer along the displacement axis x then on transverse axes y and z. This idea allowed him to build his famous interferometer, considering that the difference should become visible thanks to interferences.

The wave behavior may easily be compared to that of planes flying in the presence of a strong wind. Below, a plane is flying between A and B on a round trip. It will represent the transverse axis y. The other plane is performing a similar round trip along the AC or x axis, which will be that of the wind. Both distances are equal and the plane speed is postulated to be constant in order to simulate the constant speed of light. The first test is executed in the absence of wind.


5. THE CONTRACTION CANNOT BE REVEALED BY ANY MEANS INCLUDING OPTICAL IMAGING OR

In the absence of wind, the distance being the same, the flying time is also the same.

Here, the wind speed is 50% of the plane speed: beta = 0.5.

On the left hand side, the planes are observed from the ground and they appear tilted according to the theta angle below.

On the right hand side, they are represented in their absolute frame of reference, which is that of the air.

Clearly, the absolute distance and the round trip duration are increased according to the theta angle:

theta = ArcSin(beta) = 30 °

g = Sqr(1 – beta^2) = Cos(theta) = 0.866

The round trip duration is increased according to: 1 / g = 1.1547

Now, the wind axis coincides with that of motion.

In this case, the round trip duration is increased according to 1 / g 2 = 1.3333

In order to obtain the same duration on a round trip, it becomes clear that the A to C distance must be reduced according to g. Then both planes perform the test during the same period of time, which is 1.1547 longer according to g. Because clocks tick more slowly according to the same g factor, the recorded time remains invariable in any frame of reference. This hypothesis was called the "FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction" and it is the basis of Lorentzian Relativity: x' = g x without the translation. The Michelson interferometer contracts in such a way that interferences no longer occur. Michelson was unaware of this. Because matter contracts this way, his apparatus becomes unable to measure the aether wind.

This is not a joke. Today, most scientists consider that Lorentz's hypothesis was too strange and unbelievable to be true. However, I am working on a new science which I call "Motion Optics". It is based on the amazing Delmotte-Marcotte virtual medium. Up to now, the results have been dramatically consistent with the Lorentz transformations. The video below should force physicists and especially opticians to drastically review their judgment:

Michelson_Interferometer.5c.mkv

The plane behavior simulates pretty well that of any other mechanism. Each piece of the ensemble must travel a longer distance which requires more time even though the contraction applies. For example, a fast moving clock pendulum should oscillate more slowly so that this clock would display slower, hence inaccurate hours with respect to an unmoving one: t' = g t without the time shift. Standing waves also behave this way on the condition that the frequency is reduced in order to allow the wave fronts to perform the round trip between nodes and antinodes in any direction. Please bear in mind that standing waves contract (see No. 15 below). Surely, matter contracts because it is made up of standing waves.

Adding the translation and the time shift, one finally obtains my reversed formulas:

x' = g x + b t

t' = g t – b x


TRIANGULATION.

Alice in Wonderland.

The relative point of view becomes obvious when Alice sees the house becoming smaller. She may actually become taller as well. But what if both Alice and the house become taller? Then she would become unable to observe any difference on the condition that, ultimately, the whole universe also becomes taller.

In this case, distances on the three Cartesian axes are modified. Now, the goal is to show that the observer still cannot observe any difference if distances on one axis only are modified, which is Lorentz's postulate. It was shown above that the axial contraction could not be measured using radar signals. Here, we will focus on optical and geometric verifications only.

Descartes' formula.

Considering that the observer's eyes contract along the motion axis only, basic optical laws including Descartes' formula below are still valid. The eye and its spherical retina may be compared to the pinhole camera, whose image becomes distortion-free on a spherical surface (one obtains an azimutal projection - not Mercator - if it is cylindrical). If contraction occurs, this device can still produce an image whose proportions are preserved. Descartes showed that the entrance pupil, which is the pinhole here, was an important element of a camera. It is the intermediate point whose distance to the internal image (L1) and to the object (L2) in an imaging device which firstly allows one to know the magnification ratio X of the system. It is given by:

X = L1 / L2

Below, on the left hand side, distances are: L1 = 1 and L2 = 4 in both cases in spite of the transverse contraction for the upper situation. This indicates that the image will be reduced to 0.25 times the original object, which is an identical pinhole camera (the image will be 4 times smaller). On the right hand side, because of longitudinal contraction, distances are: L1 = 0.5 et L2 = 2. Thus, the magnification ratio is always 0.25 in all three situations.

Whatever the contraction, the pinhole camera produces an image whose proportions are conserved.

The new Motion Optics.

Motion optics is a brand new science which I am elaborating in order to show that the Lorentz transformations must occur in order to preserve the accuracy of any moving optical system. This includes a satellite parabola which is emitting waves towards the earth, given the fact that they are obviously suffering from the Doppler effect.

The video below shows that the moving observer cannot notice any anomaly, which is the goal here. It reproduces the whole Bradley aberration process. I even added a transformation using my Time Scanner, which can show how the scene would appear as seen by the contracted observer moving along with the main contracted parabola. Please note that the two small parabolas do not move at the same speed so that the contraction differs. One is moving slower than the observer and the other one is moving faster. However, the two focal points still appear identical to the observer's eyes.

But what's more, it is a flawless demonstration that Lorentz's predictions about matter contraction must occur. It is a compulsorycondition for optical phenomena to remain consistent in a moving device. If the contraction does not occur, the focus point suffers from severe distortion.

Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.mkv

The geometer calculus.

The moving geometer may use a contracted protractor template in order to measure angles. Because angles in any moving material structure are contracted in the same manner, any measuring instrument using angles cannot reveal matter contraction any more.

Angles are squashed according to: arc tan(1 / g) inside an ellipsoid of revolution. For example, as shown below, a 45° angle widens to 63.43° with respect to the displacement axis x. Now suppose that the geometer knows that the height H of a building is 100 feet. Thanks to his protractor template, he can measure that the angle to the top is 45°. He is unaware that the correct angle is 63.43° so that according to the equation: L = 100 / tan(45°), he obtains the apparent building distance: L = 100 feet. However, the correct distance is: 100 / tan 63.43 = 50 feet.


7. THERE IS NO WAY TO OBSERVE THAT CLOCKS ARE RUNNING MORE SLOWLY.

The contracted protractor template.

Matter contraction cannot be revealed using triangulation methods. It cannot be revealed using any other method including radar and optical devices either. Even standing wave contraction (see No. 15 below) cannot be revealed because the apparatus also contracts, for example the Michelson interferometer or the screen and receiver Hertz test device. In brief, matter contraction is unverifiable.

6. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS APPARENTLY THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.

Einstein's most important postulate was (see No. 2 above): "The speed of light is the same in all Galilean frames of reference."

Frankly, any reasonable person should realize that this is absurd. However, because all happens as though light really behaves like that, the intelligent scientist (is this a pleonasm?) should firstly consider that he might be fooled. As a matter of fact, there is an explanation for that. The correct postulate should be: "The speed of light is apparently the same whatever the frame of reference where it is measured."

Speed is a rather complex notion because it involves both space and time. In addition, a Galilean frame of reference using incompatible space and time units definitely cannot help. Here, one postulates that there is only one Cartesian frame of reference, whose space and time units are absolute. They should be obtained thanks to phenomena which are well known for their invariability. It was the case for the meter, which was firstly established according to a fraction of the earth's meridian, but which is today related to a given wavelength. The time units are still established according the the earth's rotation with respect to the stars. Surely, referring to the earth is somewhat arbitrary, but this convention nevertheless exhibits absolute characteristics. As long as mankind is capable of imposing it on the universe, the universe must adopt it.

According to this convention, the earth (or preferably the center of inertia of the solar system in the case of gravity) is supposed to be stationary as a preferred frame of reference. This is indeed what Lorentz's Relativity admits as a compromise because absolute motion with respect to the aether is not measurable. Thus, we must consider that the speed of light c is 299792458 meters per second, that a second is the time needed for light to travel a 299792458 meters distance and that a meter is the distance which is traveled by light during 1/299792458 of a second. Comparing to other well known invariant phenomena, one finally obtains amazingly accurate - and not transformable - space, time and speed units.

Definitely, scientists working on the GPS satellites are not happy with Einstein's Relativity because the idea that each of those satellites must be evaluated according to its own space-time measures is unreasonable. Lorentz's preferred frame of reference appears much better. Any wave emitter which is moving with respect to the earth's surface where the waves are received must use the same space and time units. The waves are obviously suffering from the Doppler effect. It is easily measurable. If the satellite clock and emitter frequency were corrected according to the absolute time, the Doppler effect is more simply contracting the wavelength according to 1 –beta forward and lengthening it according to 1 + beta backward.

An astronaut who is orbiting along with a satellite is totally unable to measure the Doppler effect which is modifying the waves emitted by its antenna. However, because of his abnormal situation, he simply cannot postulate that he is stationary in order to explain such a surprising result. He must consider that a Doppler effect does occur, especially because of the Sagnac effect. Quite reasonably, he must admit that he is undergoing the Lorentz transformations in such a way that the Doppler effect becomes undetectable.

Let's face it: the speed of light cannot be the same in all frames of reference. A GPS satellite orbiting around the earth cannot be considered to be stationary because it moves faster than the earth whatever the viewpoint. If it is emitting radio waves, their speed cannot be the same forward and backward as measured from any viewpoint. The mere presence of the Doppler effect confirms that the speed of light is not the same in all directions.

It was seen above that Alice would observe no difference if both the house and she herself had become smaller. Mechanically however, smaller mechanisms should behave faster. For example, a shorter pendulum oscillates faster. But Alice would still be unable to find out that there is an anomaly because her steps, gestures an even metabolism would also occur faster.

Alice might be capable of observing a change on the condition that at least one phenomenon behaves differently. The problem is


8. THE MICHELSON INTERFEROMETER CANNOT FIND OUT THE ABSOLUTE SPEED.

9. THE BEAM SPLITTER ANGLE MUST MATCH THE INTERFEROMETER CONTRACTION.

that we are dealing with the Lorentz transformations here. A lot of experiences already proved that they apply to all phenomena without any exception. After more than a century, chances for finding just one which behaves differently are almost nil.

On the contrary, the Lorentz transformations become surprisingly visible if the observer is not moving along with a system. But this system may actually be slower than the observer so that the observed transformation is just an illusion. Most probably, our true situation with respect to the aether will remain a mystery forever.

This point was discussed in the page on the Michelson Interferometer. More recently, I could release a series of videos on this topic. I had to improve Mr. Marcotte's virtual medium in order to manage the calculation of special devices, for example a moving beam-splitter or a moving parabola. Those videos are a good demonstration that opticians should develop a new science: Motion Optics. It may become an important section of a more general Motion Physics based on the Lorentz transformations.

Please observe the videos below. They show how the light waves should behave in the interferometer. Once again, the results flawlessly lead to the conclusion that Lorentz was right. The contraction proves to be necessary in order to reunify the light beams correctly. The fourth video shows that if there is no contraction, the results are catastrophic. Those images are frankly spectacular!



Michelson_Interferometer_Stationary.mkv

Michelson_Interferometer_No_Contraction.mkv

Here is the FreeBasic program which produced those sequences:

Michelson_Interferometer.bas

The videos available above also show that the light beam cannot be reflected correctly unless the beam splitter contracts. If it does not, the reflection angle is not 90° any more. One of the most well known laws in optics stipulates that the reflected angle equals the incident angle. Obviously, according to the new Motion Optics, this law will need a severe upgrade in order to take the contracted protractor template shown above into account.

Using the program Ether19.exe Ether19.bas, I had previously obtained the two diagrams below:

Both systems are moving rightward at half of the speed of light.

On the left, the convergent beam is deviated correctly by the contracted beam splitter.

On the right, the light beam is reflected downward incorrectly if the 45° angle remains unchanged.

Here is a video which is more explicit: Michelson_transversal.avi

This video was a world premiere at the time it was created. It evidently proves that the matter contraction hypothesis was not only a convenient and apparently improbable "ad hoc" hypothesis in order to explain Michelson's null result. Now, one must realize that this phenomenon implies a lot of secondary consequences, the most important one being the beam splitter angle modification. One may add the contracted transverse light beam which also exhibits tilted wavefronts, the Doppler effect conciliation and two different time effects (a slower frequency together with a phase wave leading to a time shift) which were carefully analyzed by Lorentz. It appears truly amazing that so many complex phenomena finally prove to behave exactly the way Lorentz predicted. No doubt, he was a genius.

Thanks to Mr. Delmotte's amazing virtual medium, which is a powerful laboratory, this experience should be remembered as the most significant one since Michelson's null result. It is even more important because it definitely proves that matter really contracts. It especially proves that the wavefronts propagating transversally become tilted according to the theta angle: theta = arc sin (v / c). For example, if the speed is half of the speed of light as shown above, the theta angle is 30°. It is 45° if beta = 0.707 c. In addition, because of the beam-splitter contraction, the light beam also contracts. I also proved that the Airy disk or the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern


10. BRADLEY'S STELLAR ABERRATION CANNOT REVEAL THE EARTH'S ABSOLUTE MOTION.

11. THE FRESNEL-FRAUNHOFER DIFFRACTION PATTERN CANNOT REVEAL ABSOLUTE MOTION.

contract in the same manner.

In brief, this experience proves that the Michelson interferometer must contract. It is unavoidable.

I also created a series of videos on the Bradley stellar aberration. Let's suppose that sun moves with respect to the aether on the same plane as that of the earth's orbit (more or less the ecliptic plane). This configuration supposes that the earth's speed is faster when it moves in the same direction as the sun and that it is slower in the opposite direction. Thus, if a telescope is pointed toward a star whose position is orthogonal every six months, the results should at first glance become asymmetric and finally, reveal the absolute speed of the sun. Bradley's goal was to record a parallax for the nearest stars, but he discovered the stellar aberration instead.

But on the contrary, the videos below show that neither the parallax nor the stellar aberration are modified by the absolute motion, at least apparently. Many authors were of an opinion that Bradley's aberration proved that the aether does not exist because the 6-month results are (or more exactly: seem) perfectly symmetrical. So let's be clear: they were wrong!

Here, it is important to remind that my Time Scanner is a useful tool which is capable of performing the Lorentz transformations on a given animated scene containing many material bodies. More exactly, it shows how a moving observer should see the scene. I did not correct the contraction because the important point is the symmetry and the simultaneity of the two focal planes. Sorry for this: the correction produces a fuzzy image because pixels are integers. If you prefer, you may stretch the final image according to 1 / g using Photoshop.

The videos show how a moving emitter produces a Doppler effect. In order to reproduce plane waves incoming from very distant stars, I use a parabola which must imperatively be contracted. Otherwise, waves are not plane. Additionally, the plane wavefronts become tilted according to the theta angle. Next, I had to compute two different small parabolas whose speed is not the same as seen above (the 6-month results are performed here by two parabolas moving in opposite direction instead). This is why they are contracted differently. The results are definitely not symmetrical, but the Time Scanner proves that they nevertheless appear symmetrical. The two convergent beams also seem to produce a focus simultaneously.

Those are facts. Not hypotheses. They are of the utmost importance for the future. Now, one cannot rely on suppositions and unverifiable arguments about optical phenomena in a moving system. It is all about Motion Optics, a new science which had never been proposed in order to explain Relativity. Motion Optics is a section of the new Motion Physics, which is based on the Lorentz transformations. Starting from now, those experiences will be corroborated by more accurate experiments.

You may have to download the DivX codec or try another player (Zoom Player, VLC Media Player) in case of issues.

Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.bas

Bradley_Aberration_Plain_Stationary.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.bas

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.5c.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.bas

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Stationary.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.bas

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Scan.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Scan.bas

Bradley_Aberration_Stationary.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration_Stationary.bas

Bradley_Aberration.5c.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration.5c.bas

Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.mkv program: Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.bas

Phase_Wave.mkv program: Phase_Wave.bas

The Fresnel diffraction pattern is well known. As far as I know, nobody ever showed how it should behave if the source was moving, though. Thanks to his awesome virtual medium, Mr. Delmotte released the image below. The linear source is 12 wavelengths wide:

Because of the Doppler effect, it was predictable that the wavelength should contract forward and expand backward. However, the fact that the general diffraction pattern is identical on both sides is a surprise. What's more, the pattern on both sides contracts according to Lorentz predictions. The wavelength difference is not noticeable either because measuring the wavelength while moving is not possible without firstly producing standing waves by means of a flat mirror or reflector. The Hertz test or an interferometer actually measures the


12. RELATIVE MOTION ONLY IS MEASURABLE.

node and antinode position, which is the same on both sides. And finally, it will be seen below (No. 15), those standing waves contract. Surely, if the observer is moving along with this emitter, he is unable to notice the pattern contraction and the wavelength contraction because he himself is contracted.

On the left hand side, the unmoving source produces the regular 2-D Fresnel diffraction pattern.

The source on the right emits a wave beam transversally at half of the speed of light.

One may compare the modified diffraction pattern to the normal one. It is seen that the wavefronts are tilted to the theta angle: theta = arc sin(beta) = 30° because the waves actually propagate according to this angle. This angle cannot be checked out because of the time shift. The number of wavelengths (30 here from top to bottom) does not change but the pattern contracts on the axis x according to Lorentz's predictions.

Finally, whatever the orientation, the pattern seems unchanged from the observer's viewpoint.

Lorentz predicted that the frequency should slow down according to the contraction factor g. As a result, the Doppler effect forward and backward becomes perfectly symmetrical. Because of this, absolute motion is unverifiable, for example that of a distant galaxy. But the observer can still measure its relative speed. As a matter of fact, astronomers presume that distant galaxies are moving away from our own galaxy, but one should bear in mind that our galaxy may be moving away from them as well.

Let's suppose that a plane is moving away at half of the speed of the sound (beta = 0.5; g = 0.866). Then the sound waves emitted by the plane undergo a normal (non relativistic) Doppler effect:

The forward wavelength is: 1 – beta = 0.5 times shorter.

The backward wavelength is: 1 + beta = 1.5 times longer.

There is no symmetry: 0.5 * 1.5 = 0.75. But in the case of light however, the emitter frequency slows down according to g.

The forward wavelength is: (1 – beta) / g = 0.577 times shorter.

The backward wavelength is : (1 + beta) / g = 1.732 times longer.

The result is a surprisingly symmetric Doppler effect which prevents the astronomer to measure the absolute speed of a galaxy.

0.577 * 1.732 = 1

Such a result is a remarkable characteristic of the Lorentz transformations. Poincare said about matter contraction:

"This strange property would seem to be a true thumb snap (a helpful hand) from nature in order to avoid the Earth's motion being revealed by optical phenomena. This cannot satisfy me and I must express here my feeling: it looks as if optical phenomena are very likely dependent on relative motion between material bodies."

But actually, the Lorentz symmetric Doppler effect is far more misleading. It was seen that matter contraction, the slower time and the local hours could fool the moving observer, but this additional symmetry is somewhat diabolic. The result is that nobody can say for sure what is going on. Motion appears purely relative and hence, anybody is entitled to presume that he is stationary. The speed of any moving body is measured with respect to him. Such a presumption may lead to unreasonable ideas, though.

All this is terribly clever, magical, magnificent, if not supernatural. But the dark side is that mankind may never know the truth about his origin and his destination in space and time.


13. ANY SPEED BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

14. THE MAXIMUM RELATIVE SPEED IS TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

15. STANDING WAVES CONTRACT TOGETHER WITH A SLOWER FREQUENCY.

Lorentz and Poincare discovered that the speed of light is an unattainable limit for matter because its mass grows up according to the gamma factor. Mass being the measure of inertia, it would becomes infinite at the speed of light.

Lorentz's reasoning was correct, but it was not quite convincing. Today however, because matter is made out of waves, the possibility that anything whatsoever could move faster than the speed of light becomes nil. The real cause of the increase in mass is the Doppler effect and I could prove this by means of active and reactive mass, which also explain action and reaction effects.

The nature of matter waves is the same as that of all forces including light. Their speed being the speed of light, absolutely nothing can travel faster. I am rather surprised that so many authors are invoking Lorentzian Relativity in order to explain marginal effects such as EPR. In my opinion, a delayed effect may very well explain apparently instantaneous action as long as the cause influences two particles simultaneously and exactly in the same manner. The point is that a field of force always influences two particles simultaneously because it is standing in the center. It is invisible and hence it was ignored when scientists tried to explain those apparently strange phenomena. What's more, they are frequently explained differently and this proves that the conclusions are not so convincing.

Lorentz never admitted faster than light speeds. Consequently, Lorentzian Relativity denies such phenomena.

The main problem with Einstein's Relativity is that it cannot compare more than two frames of reference. Worse, the results are contradictory, as the twin paradox clearly shows. Einstein's supporters try to complicate the problem by introducing an acceleration or a deceleration. But if their speed is not the same and if their inertia is never modified, the real question is: "which one is getting older?"

On the contrary, by introducing a preferred frame of reference, Lorentz's Relativity always remain perfectly logical and coherent even in the presence of many material bodies moving at any speed and in any direction. Some of these may appear severely transformed, hence less privileged. Fortunately, thanks to my Time Scanner, I can transform the whole scene the way it would appear as seen from any of these:

Time_Scanner.mkv

This video is the ultimate proof that transforming space and time was not a good idea. Transforming matter works best. In addition, the video shows a red scale which does not transform at all. Clearly, the less something is transformed, the more it is a good choice in order to establish a preferred frame of reference.

This might be the case for the center of inertia of a complex mechanism, that of the solar system for example. The distortion being minimum there, it should yield more accurate results concerning Mercury's orbit. One should also avoid Poincare's famous "chaos" theory because, in my opinion, any surrealist result is simply the consequence of a wrong calculus.

The video shows two systems moving in opposite direction at half the speed of light. Because each of these may be accelerated to nearly the speed of light, it becomes clear that their relative speed could be nearly twice the speed of light. It would be the case for two electrons moving in opposite directions in a giant collider. Thanks to Lorentz's Relativity, which accepts an unlimited number of frames of reference, the collider can be added as a preferred unmoving frame of reference. It is the best place for the scientist to examine the situation. On the contrary, another observer moving along with one of those electrons would observe a severely distorted scene where the fast moving collider itself would seem strongly contracted and where the other electron would still seem to move only at nearly the speed of light. Not twice.

Obviously, even such incompatible results are preferable because the worst of these may be rejected. From an absolute point of view, however, one should bear in mind that even the apparently most distorted viewpoint may possibly be the correct one. Certitude may be compared to the speed of light: it is unreachable, but one may approach it closely.

This was demonstrated at the page on plane standing waves, albeit spherical standing waves and especially my moving electron behave this way too. I will just suggest to examine the images below because they beautifully show that.

Truly "standing" waves.


16. LORENTZIAN RELATIVITY REMAINS CONSISTENT IN THE PRESENCE OF MANY MATERIAL BODIES.

The system speed is half of the speed of light (v = 0.5 c; g = 0.866)

The frequency being unchanged, a node and antinode contraction occurs according to g squared: 0.866 2 = 0.75.

Here, the observer is stationary with respect to the aether.

This is the same system but now the observer is moving along with it so that it seems stationary

Here, the speed was increased to sin 45° = 0.707 c (g = cos 45° = 0.707 equally).

The frequency being unchanged, the axial contraction is: g 2 = 0.5.

However, according to Lorentz, the frequency should slow down according to g.

That is why standing waves finally contract axially according to g, not g squared.

On a transverse axis, the wavelength normally contracts according to Lorentz's contraction factor g as a consequence of the normal Doppler effect (no frequency shift). However, one may obtain transverse standing waves using two parallel flat screens. In this case, the resonance frequency slows down according to g on the condition that the screen distance remains unchanged. Finally, the slower frequency corrects the standing wave contraction and the number of nodes and antinodes between the screens remains constant.

Because matter is made of standing waves, it contracts in the direction of motion according to x' = g x. But it does not contract on orthogonal axes: y'=y; z'=z. This is possible because the electron frequency slows down according to t' = g t. It becomes clear that all this is highly consistent with the Lorentz transformations:

But unfortunately, Lorentz was not aware of this amazing standing wave behavior.

x' = g x + b t

t' = g t – b x

y' = y z' = z

Please examine again the video below, which was proposed in the beginning of this page:

Time_Scanner.mkv

As I previously said, such a magnificent harmony should leave nobody unfeeling. Einstein's method is hard to figure out because each material body belongs to a separate space-time system, and additionally the results are contradictory.

Lorentz's viewpoint is much better. Not only did I succeed in showing many systems in the same image, the results are also transposed as a whole into another frame of reference without any discrepancy. The Time Scanner can show how the whole scene should appear as seen from any observer whatever his speed. Clearly, creating a separate frame of reference for each object is not an option. It is simply ridiculous.

The great advantage of Lorentzian Relativity is its logic. It is not a compilation of obscure, dogmatic and inviolable principles, it is highly explainable. It is founded on Euclidean geometry and on Descartes' space system. At last, one can understand what is going on, and there are no paradoxes any more.


17. THERE IS NO GENERAL RELATIVITY BECAUSE GRAVITY IS NOT LINKED TO RELATIVITY.

18. THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS FIRSTLY LEAD TO RELATIVITY BUT EXTEND WELL BEYOND IT .

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | You are here | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 |

Gravity is not the fundamental force of the universe. This study indicates that it is caused by the same sort of waves which are responsible for all forces. Gravity is definitely an ordinary force. It is not fundamentally different from the Lorentz force or the Coulomb force, for example.

An observer being accelerated in an elevator cage by a "good little devil" (this image was borrowed from Maxwell) indeed feels as if he was experiencing gravity. However, any other equivalent force applied to the cage would produce exactly the same effect. Also, any material body highly compressed because of gravity, acceleration or deceleration (or by any other force such as centrifuge) would certainly behave differently for mechanical reasons. A clock would obviously show modified hours, but such a result is certainly not a "time transformation".

And incidentally, gravity does not bend space. This idea is the most ridiculous ever.

In brief, it is about time to come back down to earth. Whatever the situation where Relativity is to be considered, all forces including gravity behave in the same manner.

The Lorentz transformations apply to matter and to aether waves as a Doppler effect in such a way that our absolute motion through the aether is not measurable. This is the most stunning consequence, but it is not the most important. It should be emphasized that we are mainly dealing with matter mechanics in the presence of motion. The new mechanics as proposed by Henri Poincare is actually the Motion Physics.

The Lorentz transformations will allow us to rewrite the whole physics and to elaborate new laws which will at last become perfectly true forever. At first glance, it appears advisable to upgrade Newton's laws because they are highly understandable and familiar.

After a century of Relativity, scientists still rely on Newton's laws even though they are aware that their accuracy is problematic. They feel that Newton was not totally wrong. The challenge for the next century will be to upgrade his work. I already started the project but hundreds of physicists and quite a long time will be needed until it is complete.

Gabriel LaFreniere,





The electron

Ivanov's Waves


The Doppler Effect

The Aether



The Time Scanner




The Wave Mechanics


Nuclear Forces


Kinetic Energy

Fields of Force


Magnetic Fields

Gravity

Light

Quarks

Protons

Atoms

Chemistry

The Wave Theory



Errors to Correct



Conclusion


THE RELATIVISTIC BIG BANG

The redshift of remote galaxies is relativistic.

In this image, the constant transverse wavelength according to Lorentz's equations: y' = y; z' = z, is well observable .

In addition to the regular Doppler effect, the frequency slows down according to Lorentz's time equation.

Because of the Lorentz transformations, observer B wrongly considers that he is at the center of the Universe.

In his view, he is stationary so that A and C are apparently moving away from him at the same distance and speed.

RELATIVITY

There are many reasons why Relativity holds true. The absence of transverse contraction according to Lorentz's discovery is definitely the most important one. Such a result, which is the main characteristic of the Relativistic Doppler effect, implies a slower pulsation rate according to Lorentz's time equation. The well-known Lorentz-FitzGerald longitudinal contraction and Lorentz's "local time" are also of the utmost importance when it comes to explaining Relativity.

The Alpha Transformations.

The problem is that the Lorentz Transformations are misleading. They must be applied to a moving system because the x' and t' variables refer to stationary one. Instead of space and time units, the variables should rather be given in wavelength and phase units. In addition, Voigt, Lorentz, Poincare, and Larmor had to elaborate complicated demonstrations using Maxwell's equations. As a matter of fact, Lorentz himself wrote in 1920 that less than 10 physicists in the whole world were able to explain Relativity. Today, it is even worse, and that is why most astronomers no longer rely on elementary Relativity in order to understand the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe.

Fortunately, I could elaborate a more practical equation set which applies to Ivanov's standing waves. Because it may be applied to sound waves with similar results, the use of Maxwell's equations is no longer relevant. I called this equation set the Alpha transformations because it is the very basis of matter mechanics, which is known to be the Wave Mechanics since Louis de Broglie. Although they primarily reflect the behavior of standing waves, their reversed form is surprisingly very similar to the original Lorentz transformations, which apply to matter.

The Alpha Transformations.

The Alpha Transformations do reproduce Ivanov's standing waves in a moving environment. But they may also be reproduced using the usual wave addition method because, at least theoretically, it is the superimposition of two waves trains traveling in opposite direction and whose wavelength differ. Ivanov's waves may also be reproduced using my Time Scanner, the Delmotte-Marcotte virtual wave medium, or an acoustic device made out of a microphone and two distant loudspeakers in the presence of wind. Because all five methods yield the same results, the behavior of this fascinating phenomenon is not disputable.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_Relativistic_Big_Bang.htm

Ivanov's waves.

At first glance, this phenomenon might not look that important. However, it can be shown that it is closely related to the Lorentz Transformations. The node and antinode structure is moving at the "alpha" speed in the direction of the shorter waves so that its intrinsic energy is also moving at the alpha speed. Especially, as it was explained above, this system exhibits a slower pulsation rate and a longitudinal contraction with respect to the wavelength geometrical mean. What's more, because of the presence of a stunning phase wave, a series of clocks regulated according to the local phase would obviously display Lorentz's "local time". Such effects are indeed identical to those of the Lorentz Transformations.

The Lorentz Transformations apply to all galaxies in the Universe.

The point is that today's astronomers do not believe that remote galaxies are undergoing the Lorentz transformations. In their picture, because the Universe is expanding, galaxies are practically stationary with respect to the local "space fabric". This is known as the "raisin pudding model". Thus, even though we are surely not in the center of the Universe, we are still observing that all galaxies around us are receding according to Hubble's law.

This interpretation of the Big Bang is incorrect, though, because Relativity always holds true. It does not tolerate any exception. Astronomers are aware that today's instruments and methods are amazingly accurate, so that relativistic speeds are no longer necessary in order to verify it. Especially, the speed of a moving space ship as measured from another one is verifiable using a Doppler radar. Hence, they must realize that some new crucial experiences are already possible. They should examine more carefully the Relativistic Big Bang hypothesis, simply because it will soon be verified.

The expanding Universe is relativistic. That is, very distant and fast galaxies are undergoing the Lorentz transformations. They are emitting radio waves, light, X-rays and gamma rays according to a slower rate of time, and that is why the resulting Doppler effect is relativistic.

Rearward relativistic Doppler: lambda' = lambda * (1 + beta) / g

Relativistic redshift: R = (1 + beta) / g

According to Relativity, even the most distant galaxies cannot reach the speed of light. Hence, a redshift of 2 or more cannot indicate that the speed of a galaxy is faster than the speed of light. For this reason, it is not acceptable to deal with a so-called "z" redshift, which is given by the wavelength ratio minus 1 in order to indicate the beta (or v / c) speed. Using the more acceptable redshift R shown above, the galaxy normalized speed is given by:

beta = 2 / ((1 / R)^2 + 1) – 1

The most distant galaxies are also severely contracted according to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. This includes distances between them. As a result, the cosmic sphere seems to contain far more galaxies near its limits than in its central area.

In the graphics below, seven galaxies (A to G) are placed and transformed according to the Lorentz transformations. This way, any of them may be considered to be stationary in the center of the universe, and the two neighboring galaxies seem to move away at the same distance and at the same alpha speed.


The Cosmic Sphere.

In this example, the beta speed is 0.5 for C and the alpha intermediate speed is 0.2679 for B.

As seen from the center A, the more the galaxies are distant and fast, the more they are contracted.

But surprisingly, observer B also observes that he is stationary and that all galaxies are moving away from him.

This happens because he is moving towards the waves incoming from the right.

The result of this is that his perception of the time (his "local time") is distorted.

The Time Scanner is capable of reproducing the equivalent distortion.

Big_Bang_02_Doppler_Lorentz_Scan.avi

The FreeBasic program: Big_Bang_02_Doppler_Lorentz_Scan.bas

The Alpha suite.

Most of the time, the Doppler effect is the cause of the forward vs. rearward wavelength difference. Christian Doppler himself pointed out in 1842 that this difference is unnoticeable if the observer is moving along with the transmitter. In this case, Ivanov's waves are moving at the same speed. The video below shows that this fundamental result is consistent with both the acoustic and relativistic Doppler effect.

Standing_Waves_06_Doppler.mkv

However, in the case of the relativistic Doppler effect, the slower frequency must be taken into account, and the result of this is that the Doppler effect seems to be relative. It is no longer possible to deduce one's absolute speed from it because of the amazing symmetry. This may easily be demonstrated using an "Alpha Suite", that is, any suite based on a constant alpha reference speed. The suite must be calculated according to Poincare's law of speed addition:

beta = (alpha + alpha) / (1 + alpha * alpha)

beta' = (alpha + beta) / (1 + alpha * beta)

beta'' = (alpha + beta') / (1 + alpha * beta')


For example, let's suppose that observer A below is stationary and that observer C is moving at beta = 0.5 times the speed of light. According to Poincare, the observer B must move at an intermediate alpha speed in order to see both A and C moving away from him at the same alpha speed.

The alpha speed is given by:


alpha = (1 – 0.866025) / 0.5 = 0.267949

And inversely: beta = (alpha + alpha) / (1 + alpha * alpha) = 0.5

Thus, in the graphics below, A is stationary, B is moving at 0.267949 c and C is moving at 0.5 c. This situation is remarkable because B may consider that A and C are moving away from him at the alpha speed. But the situation of D is even more remarkable because his observations are exactly identical to those of B. This is the most stunning effect of Relativity: any speed seems to be relative so that the absolute speed cannot be recorded any more.

This "theorem" is based on Ivanov's waves.

It shows that the situation of observers B and D is equivalent.

Their absolute motion is undetectable because they are recording the same data.

The redshift from their two neighbors seems identical: R = 1.316074 times the regular wavelength.

The measured redshift apparently indicates the alpha speed = 2 / ((1 / 1.316074)^2 + 1) – 1 = 0.267949

This occurs because the measures of D are far more distorted as a result of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.

The animation below proves that, using the Hertz test, observer B measures identical wavelengths from A and C.



The Lorentz Tri-Dimensional Transformations.

On a transverse axis, the expansion of the Universe produces a contraction which is incompatible with Lorentz's y' = y; z' = z equations. It is negligible at any scale smaller than that of our galaxy, yet it is unavoidable here because the goal is to show how the Universe is expanding.

At the scale of the Universe, the Lorentz Transformations produce a transverse contraction.

On April 30, 2010, I released a tri-dimensional version of the Lorentz Transformations (see below).

Using this equation set, it is now possible to show the "Big Bang" and the expansion of the Universe:

Cosmic_Sphere.mkv

Big_Bang_01_Relativistic.mkv

The program: Big_Bang_01_Relativistic.bas

It turns out that the x axis is a preferred one, where Lorentz's t' phase (or time) applies and where the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction takes place using Lorentz's original contraction factor. The y axis is involving a secondary level of transformation as seen by the observer moving on the x axis. Similarly, the transformation on the z axis is a tertiary one as seen by an observer moving on both x and y axes. Thus, the all-azimuth transformations shown below are asymmetric. Fortunately, it is possible to bypass this constraint by accelerating the speed according to beta[y] / g[x] or beta[z] / g[y] in order to obtain symmetrical results, for example if the goal is to obtain a 45° direction. Of course, it is also possible to elaborate a different equation set in order to obtain symmetrical results, but this option proves to be far more complicated. It also leads to speeds faster than light, hence inconsistent with Relativity.

On the positive side, this equation set is consistent with Poincare's law of speed addition. For instance, a beta speed of 0.9999 on all three x, y and z axes still produces a resulting beta[xyz] speed slower than the speed of light. This leads to a new law of speed composition: g

xyz = g

x * g

y * g

z .

Below are the Lorentz all-Azimuth Transformations:


The Lorentz all-Azimuth tri-Dimensional Transformations.

The formula: gxyz = gx * gy * gz introduces a new law of relativistic speed composition.

Henri Poincare is the author of a similar law on relativistic speed addition.

In May and June 2009, I worked hard in order to re-arrange and simplify this equation set. Now, it is quite nice. Even the de Broglie's phase wave is reproducible using it. Using the Delmotte-Marcotte wave medium, I could check that those transformations work perfectly, especially when it comes to reproducing the relativistic Doppler effect.

I also succeeded in transforming Lorentz himself. Now, that's what I call the Lorentz "transformations"!

Lorentz_3D_Transformations.mkv

The contraction especially is well visible. The goal was actually to show that the phase wave is linked to the contraction (an ellipse is needed instead of a circle). This way, the phase wave and the relativistic Doppler effect are perfectly superimposed.

Phase_Wave_2.mkv

The all-azimuth transformations are a must in order to transform simultaneously several structures or wave emitters whose direction is not the same. In the animations suggested here, one may check that the transformations are perfectly achieved.

What's even better is their effect on a transmitter. In addition to the contraction, the pulsation phase is slowed down and it is modified in order to mach the phase wave. It should be emphasized that the Time Scanner reproduces the same effects using only the phase wave and the alpha speed. According to the animations below, the phase wave may be interpreted in different ways.

Big_Bang_04_Phase_Wave.mkv

Phase_Wave.mkv

I very carefully reproduced the relativistic Doppler effect near to the center of the transmitter. After all, it is the main purpose of the Lorentz Transformations.

Relativistic_Doppler.avi

Relativistic_Doppler.bas

Similarly, below is the most recent representation of my moving electron, which was obtained by means of the all-azimuth transformations. It was firstly shown in my 2002 book: "Matter is made of waves". Here, it is moving along a diagonal. Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte pointed out that its structure may be given by the sinus cardinalis: y = sin(x) / x.

Doppler_Moving_Electron_Diagonal.avi

Doppler_Moving_Electron_Diagonal.bas


All this indicates that any moving material system is undergoing three fundamental transformations:

1 – The system experiences a contraction on the displacement axis according to Lorentz's factor.

2 – Events in this system are occurring at a slower rate of time according to Lorentz's factor.

3 – Events at the rear of this system are occurring sooner according to Lorentz's time equation.

The Universe is likely to be expanding regularly.

It was shown above that any expansion phenomenon must be relativistic. It is not possible to measure some consistent data in the presence of three A, B, C space ships regularly spaced without respecting the alpha speed of the central one. For example, speeds such as 0.0000001 c for A, 0.0000002 c for B and 0.0000003 c for C would definitely lead to an asymmetry because their initial equal distance will soon become unequal and measurable as such by both A and C.

In short, the relativistic expansion is verifiable and measurable. What's more, it is consistent with Relativity. Thus, I am of an opinion that rejecting the relativistic hypothesis is highly imprudent, if not illogic.

That is why Mr. Saul Perlmutter cannot deduce from his discovery that the Universe is expanding in an accelerated manner. It was even more imprudent to put forward the "dark energy" hypothesis in order to explain it. I do recognize the importance of his discovery, but it must definitely be interpreted as a confirmation that the expansion of the Universe is relativistic.

The curves below are correct on condition that the Hubble constant is really constant, which is still to be demonstrated. So, let's suppose it is constant. In addition, one must realize that, if the expansion of the Universe is relativistic, the speed of light is unattainable. This is why the purple curve strongly deviates from the blue one when it approaches c. But surprisingly, although the well-known regular brightness (green curve) of a supernova differs if it is relativistic (red curve), the difference is rather small.

The important point is that the difference matches Mr. Perlmutter's observations. This result indicates that the expansion of the Universe is relativistic. It doesn't indicate that the expansion is accelerated. I am quite sure that this trend will be confirmed in many years from now, as more and more observations on very distant and fast supernovae will be available.

The Expansion of the Aether.

The aether itself may be expanding as a result of its elasticity. In this case, one should admit that very distant galaxies may be receding much faster than the speed of light. What's more, considering that they should be stationary with respect to the local aether, the


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11| You are here | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 |

Lorentz Transformations would not apply. And finally, because all galaxies would be accelerated thanks to the aether elasticity, this property would definitely account for a so-called "dark energy".

This picture is strangely similar to what astronomers believe today. However, such an expansion must be still compatible with Relativity. Otherwise, it would be measurable in an absolute way so that the center of the Universe would become verifiable. The answer to this ultimate question is well beyond our reach today because there are so many variables and hypotheses. Especially, a severe redshift is difficult to measure because the radiation energy is dimming proportionally. Considering the distance, even X-rays are becoming very faint if they are shifted into infrared.

Considering that they are moving at nearly the speed of light, fastest galaxies are supposed to be seen about 13.5 billion light-years away. But today, because the light had to travel during 13.5 billion years, they may be actually about 27 billion light-years away. One should nevertheless be aware that such a distortion as a result of the light traveling delay must imperatively be perceived as a space contraction which partially accounts for the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. In addition, though, because the aether is expanding at the speed of light, the light emitted toward us by those galaxies is no longer capable of reaching our telescopes.

On the one hand, galaxies receding faster than the speed of light would become totally invisible. On the other hand, galaxies receding at nearly the speed of light would exhibit a severe redshift because, in this area, the speed of light with respect to us is very slow. Hence, their actual distance would be far greater than 27 billion light-years away. That is why the result is finally comparable to that of a pure relativistic Big Bang, albeit it is not perfectly identical.

All this is highly hypothetical. However, we are still capable of building larger telescopes. I strongly think that, in the future, and whatever the direction, we will observe more and more galaxies very near to the limits of the Cosmic Sphere. This will definitely indicate that the center of the Universe is unverifiable and that the expansion of the Universe is – or seems – relativistic.

Gabriel LaFreniere,





The electron

Ivanov's Waves


The Doppler Effect

The Aether



The Time Scanner





The Wave Mechanics


Nuclear Forces


Kinetic Energy

Fields of Force


Magnetic Fields

Gravity

Light

Quarks

Protons

Atoms

Chemistry

The Wave Theory



Errors to Correct



Conclusion


THE ELECTRON PHASE SHIFT

The lambda / 2 phase shift.

The lambda spaced lines on the wave peaks switch to valleys on the right.

The electron phase shift had to be explained carefully because it modifies seriously the way matter acts and reacts. Actually, this stunning phenomenon allows one to explain why the action and reaction law holds true. It is all about Matter Mechanics.

The full wavelength electron core.

In July 2003, I found Mr. Milo Wolff's web site. I noticed that the core in the center of his electron was a full wavelength in diameter. I immediately wrote a computer program in order to check this and I soon found that the core for spherical standing waves should indeed be a full lambda wide as shown above.

This was also very clearly demonstrated by Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte thanks to his optimized 3-D Virtual Medium. Mr. Marcotte also showed that any spherical incoming Gaussian impulse simply reproduces the same normal distribution pattern in the center. Surprisingly, the well known two peaks "Ricker wavelet" (which is used for studying earthquakes -and not named after "Richter") as a convergent spherical system produces the same Gaussian distribution pattern in the center.

In addition, the electron amplification is caused by a lens effect. The resulting energy is extracted from aether waves and it is permanently radiated all around. This leads us to four important points:

1 - The electron is a pulsating wave center. Electrons constantly radiate energy.

2 - The electron is a finite system. In my opinion its standing waves progressively fade out and do not expand significantly outside a one meter radius sphere, and possibly much less.

3 - Spherical standing waves are not made out of in-waves and out-waves. This is indeed a very useful and effective method for displaying standing waves. However, this point of view absolutely does not correspond to what is really going on. Any standing wave node is a zero energy point where no energy can pass through. The medium substance simply moves back and forth inside a lambda / 2 space, and this phenomenon obeys Hooke's law.

4 - The electron is made of spherical standing waves which are superimposed on outgoing traveling waves whose amplitude is nil at the center. The result is not well known as partially standing waves. I made the animation below in order to show that standing waves can slowly transform into traveling waves, with a transitional partially standing wave state between them :

http://glafreniere.com/sa_phaseshift.htm

The electron is a pulsation wave center because its standing waves progressively transform to regular traveling waves.

The emitted energy is borrowed from all aether waves traveling in the vicinity because of a lens effect.

Intermediate on-axis waves cancel, but the rest add constructively beyond both electrons.

The external radiation pressure produces an attraction effect.

Here, the distance is .5 wavelength shorter and the result is rather a repulsion effect.

Intermediate waves add constructively but they rather cancel beyond both electrons.

So there should be an equilibrium point for a .25 wavelength distance difference.

Now, let us suppose that two electrons are very close together. Then only pure standing waves, not partially standing waves, are present. It becomes obvious that the wave addition, especially along the axis joining them, may vary.

As a matter of fact, adding or removing just a half-wavelength to the distance produces opposite effects which are clearly visible in the diagrams below.

The important point is that, if the election core was only a half-lambda wide, this opposite effect would be absent. Waves would add constructively or destructively everywhere.

The capture phenomenon.

Assuming that axial standing waves are amplified, they radiate energy towards both sides. In the upper diagram situation, there is an inward radiation pressure only and both electrons are pushed towards each other. On the contrary, they are rather repelled in the lower diagram. It becomes obvious that there is an equilibrium point in-between, and as long as the particles are not moving very fast with respect to each other, they must be captured in this position. The electron or positron pair then becomes a quark. It is truly a Wave Structure, and it is responsible for neutrons, protons, and all other more or less stable particles.

Excessive vibrations may destroy the resulting particle, though, and there is surely a privileged distance where this clamping effect is likely to occur. Please note this appears to be a gluonic field. It is not an electrostatic field because the electron standing waves are involved. Electrostatic forces are rather the result of the addition of progressive spherical waves emitted by electrons or positrons.


The electron standing wave amplitude.

This is no longer true for very long distances, where amplitude is nil.

Because energy is the square of amplitude, which is doubled there, this area basically contains four times more energy than that of one electron. What is more, those standing waves are also amplified by aether waves in the same manner as electrons alone are, and the resulting energy becomes additional mass.

Finally, the gluonic field mass is much greater than that of one electron. It becomes clear that the electron pair which is responsible for the whole quark including the gluonic field becomes almost invisible. In addition, the resulting frequency is no longer that of the electron. So the electrostatic forces cannot work any more, but there is still some place for some other sort of spin, which is known to be fractional.

Most of the proton mass, which is 1836 times that of one electron, is located inside gluonic fields. They are very strong fields of force. The neutron contains only three quarks, each quark being made of two electrons and/or positrons only, but there is most probably an additional positron hidden in the middle of the proton.

The hydrogen atom.

However, the wave addition works quite differently for the electron-positron pair. Assuming that the proton is a neutron containing a positron, this is the case for the the hydrogen atom whose nucleus is one proton only. In such a case, there is a pi/2 phase offset and the wave addition produces the stunning on-axis unidirectional radiation, which is responsible for magnetic fields.

The electron in the presence of a proton generates this unidirectional radiation.

The wave direction is reversed for opposite spin and also for any lambda/2 distance difference.

This phenomenon is the origin of magnetic north and south poles.

Mr. Milo Wolff's onion layers.

My own calculations using both the Huygens Principle and Mr. Wolff's "onion layers" comparison (each layer internal radius is that of the precedent external radius, and the layer thickness is a half-wavelength) lead me to the diagram below. The formulas were given by Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte in 2006.

Mr. Milo Wolff's phase shift.

Those calculations were very satisfactory and all seemed O.K. More similar schemes can also be found on the Internet and may have been elaborated hundreds of years ago. However, Mr. Milo Wolff suggested that this wave system could be an electron.


The electron spin.

The lambda / 2 phase shift.

The leftward and rightward wave addition produces the standard electron.

One could also say in-waves and out-waves, but both interpretations are wrong from my point of view.

Mr. Wolff also spoke about a "phase shift". He invoked it in order to justify the electron spin.

However, I do not agree. In my picture, the electron and positron spin is the result of a phase difference, which is well visible in the animated diagram below:

The –1/2 and +1/2 spins are opposite, yet they both belong to the electron. The electron vs. positron phase is not opposite, there is rather a pi / 2 difference only. Thus, there is no need to invoke a phase shift in order to explain spin.

Such a phase shift seemed to me a quite useless and weird idea. However my computer programs could easily reveal phases. So I begun investigating inside the electron core and I found... a phase shift!

The phase shift is clearly visible below:

Faster than the speed of light.

Clearly, the wave accelerates inside the spherical central antinode.


Surprisingly, the first onion layer volume is exactly seven (7) times that of the electron core.

The sine wave energy distribution inside each layer leads to the equivalent sin(x)/x equation.

Here, the Huygens' wavelets come from the surface of just one hemisphere, that on the left hand side.

Both hemispheres simply reproduce the unmoving electron.

Since the beginning I always thought that the waves mean speed was constant whether the aether was filled with high energy waves or not. For this reason the speed of light is a constant. It is absolute.

However, the speed of sound, for example, is faster at sea level then at high altitude. The temperature being constant, the sound waves are faster where the air pressure is higher.

From Mr. Wolff's "onion layers" point of view, the spherical wave amplitude should be linked to each layer volume:

Clearly, as soon as they are penetrating the internal sphere, incoming waves have to deal with a seven times smaller volume (please bear in mind that this is only the mathematical point of view) where the medium compression is very high. But the important point is that the medium is compressed on a full lambda distance, allowing an unusual faster wave speed there.

The acceleration inside the core is also clearly visible on this animation :

The radiation pressure.


The Doppler moving electron.

Each spherical wave center of curvature stays at rest inside aether.

It becomes clear that any convergent hemispheric wave must move faster than the speed of light inside the core or focus point. Such a situation may be seen as the result of millions of Huygens' wavelets incoming from the inner surface of only one hemisphere. However, this does not occur inside a static, unmoving electron because both hemispheres theoretically produce waves traveling in opposite directions.

This strongly suggests to me that when the wave amplitude is not equal from both sides, the electron central antinode must be pushed away. This motion produces a slight Doppler effect, and it becomes more and more significant until the unequal amplitude situation stops. The result is my Doppler moving electron:

This animation shows the electron while it is moving at half of the speed of light (beta = .5). Then the Doppler wave amplitude ratio equals:

(l – �) / (1 + �) = 3

The forward amplitude is 3 while it is 1 backward. The difference (3 – 1 = 2) indicates that the electron core is constantly pushed forward by half of the speed of light. This is a very plausible explanation for inertia. Any moving electron cannot change its speed unless a change in forward or backward wave amplitude occurs.

The "Wave Structure of Matter".

So far as I know, Mr. Milo Wolff first proposed this spherical standing wave as the basic unit for matter.

He told us that the electron and the positron were the same particle.

He discovered the important lambda / 2 phase shift.

He showed that the mass increase was related to the Doppler effect.

He also demonstrated that despite the fact that they may be seen as a point, electrons are actually present inside a rather large space. Thus, a wave interaction becomes possible in such a way that a given number of electrons and positrons are not isolated any more. On the contrary, they can form a structure: a Wave Structure. Obviously, speaking about the Wave Structure of Matter is the next highly relevant step, but unfortunately Mr. Wolff and most of his disciples united under this banner were strangely silent on this. As a matter of fact, they never proposed any wave structure.

I am very disappointed that so many people were wrongly led into some sort of mystic sect. Frankly, philosophy is not the appropriate tool. This is weird.

The most brilliant exception was Mrs. Caroline H. Thompson, who asked the correct question: What is matter? She did propose a "Wave Structure" in the form of a tetrahedron; my own researches did not lead to this hypothesis but it is still possible. She also pointed out that many of Mr. Wolff's ideas were somewhat evanescent. She proposed her own wave theory. She was very convinced that many of today's well accepted ideas such as photons, misunderstood quantum effects, the non existence of the aether, Einstein's Relativity, etc., had to be reviewed. She realized that because of this, the scientific world was led on a blind alley. I also think that many of today's assumptions in physics are definitely false.

Mrs. Caroline Thompson was a very clever person, perhaps the most clever woman ever.

More Pioneers.

I strongly believe that Lorentz was right. His Relativity is true and complete. Space and time are distinct and absolute. Einstein's Special Relativity seems to be true but the postulates are not. Especially, the speed of light is not the same in all frames of reference. Einstein also misled us for 100 years about photons and gravity. His ideas about space-time contraction and/or curvature are ridiculous.

I also agree with Mr. Serge Cabala's ideas. The piston machine on his home page is very interesting. It shows how the Lorentz transformations act on matter. In my opinion this pioneer should be remembered as the first person on this planet who discovered (around 1970) that matter is purely made out of waves. He postulated that aether should exist, and he also showed that Relativity is consistent with the aether.

Mr. Yuri Ivanov discovered in 1990 that standing waves undergo a contraction according to Michelson's calculations. This is of the utmost importance. As far as I know, nobody else was aware of this before him. What is more, he showed that matter using standing waves as bonding forces should also contract for this reason, and that this could explain Michelson's null result and Relativity.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11| 12 | You are here | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 |

Unfortunately, he clearly did not understand well Lorentz's time equation, and he finally ended up with too severe a contraction.

The true cause.

On July 10, 2006, Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte succeeded in experimenting the moving and unmoving electron thanks to his own 3-D Virtual Medium. It was a great achievement.

The point is that Mr. Marcotte's experiment also clearly demonstrated that, near to the electron center, the first spherical node is one wavelength wide in diameter instead of the normal lambda / 2 length between two successive nodes. Inside the inner spherical node, the additional distance for a theoretical incoming and then outgoing wave is half of a wavelength, which finally causes the lambda / 2 phase shift. But this is only the mathematical point of view.

From a mechanical point of view, though, the first spherical node is totally an obstacle to any wave displacement. Clearly, no energy can pass through it because a standing wave node is a constant zero energy zone. So, a more reasonable hypothesis should be that waves are simply bouncing back and forth between the first and the second spherical node, whose radius is extended to an additional lambda / 4 length as compared to a theoretical node right at the center.

This is the true cause of the electron phase shift.

More proofs.

Please download this program on the Wave Mechanics:


This program was intended to show how waves behave in the vicinity of reflectors such as parabolic, elliptic, corner, straight and even three-sided. I am quite sure that this sort of program, which is easily upgradeable, will soon become a must for opticians, acousticians, and radio-electricians. However, I managed to start the program on the elliptic configuration for both the emitter and receiver. In addition, both sections are joined together into a full elliptic reflector.

It is a well known fact that the ellipse main property is that the distance from one focal point to any point of the ellipse and then to the second focal point is rigorously constant. This apparently unavoidable property led mathematicians to postulate that circular (or spherical for the ellipsoid reflector) waves emitted at the first focal point should reach the second focal point without any distortion.

Well, this proves to be absolutely false, and one must admit that equations for this are not reliable. It is all about amplitude, not phase. Because amplitude is clearly higher on the left hand side, the central antinode at the second focal point is not circular any more. It is rather elliptic, and the result is an equivalent node and antinode offset. In addition, the characteristic "partially standing wave" behavior is easily recognizable (see Ivanov's Waves) as a longitudinal motion which is also observable in the animation shown above (Airy180.gif).

Regular waves can influence standing waves.

This behavior applies to the moving electron and the phase shift calculus then becomes much more complex. Finally, the same behavior also explains radiation pressure as well as inertia.

Until some organization realizes that this most important phenomenon should be experimented by means of a physical device, using air, water or solid homogenous substance such as quartz, the only experiment available now needs Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's virtual medium, which is a virtual but still highly dependable laboratory. The goal is to show that traveling waves penetrating a circular or spherical standing wave system will introduce some changes. It is important to test this experimentally.

Besides Mr. Marcotte's experiment, this phenomenon is indeed easily verifiable inside air or water by means of a large number of loudspeakers regularly spaced on the internal surface of a sphere. This will produce wavelets in accordance with the Huygens Principle, and whose addition generates a unique incoming spherical wave front.

The important point is that traveling waves definitely influence standing waves. Two electrons pulsating spherical waves all around will surely influence each other. Clearly, this explains the action and reaction law, and the whole matter mechanics becomes possible thanks to the radiation pressure.

This flawless demonstration is a very strong argument in favor of the wave nature of matter.

The electron phase shift and the Wave Mechanics.

The electron phase shift is of the utmost importance because it leads to some totally different Wave Mechanics. Magnetic, electrostatic and gluonic fields are especially involved. Now that the electron additional lambda / 2 wavelength inside its central core is well established, action and reaction through fields of force can finally be explained.

Now, we can understand why Newton's laws hold true.

Gabriel LaFreniere,






The electron

Ivanov's Waves


The Doppler Effect

The Aether



The Time Scanner





The Wave Mechanics


Nuclear Forces


Kinetic Energy

Fields of Force


Magnetic Fields

Gravity

Light

Quarks

Protons

Atoms

Chemistry

The Wave Theory



Errors to Correct



Conclusion


THE WAVE MECHANICS

Action and reaction is certainly one of Newton's most important laws.

Henri Poincare's "New Mechanics".

We may have to elaborate a still hardly conceivable New Mechanics where the speed of light is unattainable because inertia increases with velocity.

Matter Mechanics.

Louis de Broglie rightfully proposed that matter mechanics should be called "The Wave Mechanics". But scientists usually prefer quantum mechanics because of Planck's constant. Even though this constant is useful, the wave properties are far more important.

I am of an opinion that Newton's laws are still highly relevant on condition that the law of Relativity is invoked. This occurs because, as Christian Doppler himself discovered, a moving observer cannot perceive the Doppler effect in his environment. Newton's laws need some minor adjustments, though, because Poincare was right: the speed of light is unattainable. Furthermore, in 1904, Poincaré also said in St-Louis, USA:

"The laws of physical phenomena are the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation, so that we have not or cannot have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion."

Einstein proposed the postulate below in his 1905 first edition of his Theory of Relativity. It is clearly similar to Poincaré's:

"The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Newton's laws are definitely wrong from an absolute point of view, though. They should be replaced by Lorentz's laws based on the Lorentz transformations, which are definitely and absolutely true because it is how the Doppler effect transforms matter. The goal is to examine what is really going on. The point is that, from a mechanical and absolute point of view, the aether is the only admissible frame of reference. Any moving wave system must still be represented under the same space and time coordinates. Because any moving wave system undergoes the Doppler effect, the Lorentz additional mass, which is kinetic energy as a result of the wave contraction, must also be imperatively evaluated in the same unmoving frame of reference.

Then action and reaction especially prove to be frankly unequal. I found that Active and Reactive Mass based on the Doppler effect are highly useful in order to evaluate active and reactive forces. The same calculus also indicates how forces will act in a fast moving systems and proves that Newton's laws are no longer valid.

Matter is made of waves.

We know since Louis de Broglie that matter particles exhibit wave properties. Indisputably, matter works by means or waves. Let us make it perfectly clear : there is no alternative. At this stage, it is not an assumption, it is a certainty.

Additionally, the electron is not a metal marble covered in chrome. It cannot be made of matter. It is rather matter which is made of electrons. So, let us postulate that the electron is a standing wave system. Furthermore, these waves cannot be plane. They should be spherical.

So, when two electrons come very close together, the wave addition must lead to the diagrams below:

http://glafreniere.com/sa_mechanics.htm

Note the concentric ellipsoids compatible with hyperboloids.

Distance: 10 wavelengths.

Waves add constructively between two electrons but they rather add destructively beyond them.

Then the central field of force should produce a repulsion effect.

In this diagram, a half-wavelength was added to the distance.

Then two opposite fields of force should rather push both particles towards each other.

A capture phenomenon becomes possible because there is an equilibrium point in-between.


One-way waves along the axis joining one electron and one proton are responsible for magnetic fields.

The wave direction is reversed for opposite spin and also for any lambda/2 distance difference.

This phenomenon is the origin of magnetic north and south poles.

UNIFYING ALL FORCES

All forces are transmitted by waves at the speed of light.

Waves emitted by two material bodies add constructively between them and produce a field of force.

The field of force exerts a radiation pressure on both sides and the result is opposite motion.

The Radiation Pressure.

John Poynting showed that the light exerts a radiation pressure. Actually, not just the light. All waves propagating through the aether, whose speed is also the speed of light, can more or less "push" matter. The pressure mechanism is not that simple, though, because aether waves are carrying very few energy as compared to that of the electron central antinode.

The whole wave addition, which produces standing waves, must rather be considered. For example, two electrons or positrons emitting all azimuth spherical waves should produce the characteristic standing wave set below.

The electrostatic field of force.

It may be called "biconvex" because only curved waves are adding constructively.


The quark and its gluonic field of force.

The quark alone is stable by itself but attracted particles are likely to destroy its equilibrium.

The cross section is similar to the diffractive (or zonal) lens.

Because the field of force may be seen as thousands of stacked lenses focusing towards both electrons, one should indeed expect a strong lens effect from it. But from an optical point of view, those lenses definitely cannot work because the concentric zones are moving away from the center. The phase rotation cancels the focusing effect.

Fortunately, the electron works very much like a stroboscope. This well known device can immobilize any rotating system, and it is also true in the case of a phase rotation. The electron is indeed a perfect stroboscope because its standing waves periodically appear everywhere simultaneously, and then disappear. And because a significant part of the electrostatic field is located inside both electrons, this should activate the field of force amplification in such a way that some of the radiated energy is finally transmitted directly towards both electrons. Then the phase coincides and the radiation pressure is much more intense.

On the contrary, the positron quadrature cancels the stroboscope effect and there is no radiation pressure any more. But the equivalent pressure responsible for inertia is still present on the opposite side. This finally ends up with a symmetrical attraction effect.

Additionally, more electrons in the vicinity should add their own standing waves to the process and a synchronization process should take place. Then the electron spin as a common phase or opposite phase (which is simultaneous) becomes evident. Positrons, however, are all hidden inside protons where the required quadrature is present.

The shade effect.

It should be understood that any attraction effect actually occurs as a result of a pressure from the opposite side.

For example, all electrons and positrons in the sun collect their energy from plane aether waves, whose residual energy is smaller when they go on propagating towards the earth. Those propagating from the opposite direction are more powerful and finally, they will push the Earth toward the Sun. However, this shade effect is cancelled because all electrons and positrons in the Sun also send waves toward the Earth and the result is nil. So, gravity cannot be explained by a shade effect. This was also established by Poincaré, yet he was unaware of the radiation pressure mechanism. Actually, all waves emitted by matter inside the sun are not plane any more. They are obviously spherical, and the resulting radiation pressure for "biconvex" fields of force is definitely weaker than that of a "plano-convex" one. Now this explains gravity.

The diagram below shows that the gluonic field, which is made of plane standing waves at least in the center, must radiate most of its energy on the axis. Unlike electrons and positrons, the field does not radiate the equivalent energy transversally any more. This is why the gluon shade effect really works. The gluon can attract all neutral, positive or negative particles all around except along the axis :

The lens effect.

Standard waves can propagate into each other without interference, but standing waves do interfere. Although it is not a well known fact, the lens effect really works too. This can easily be tested inside air, for example. Depending on its mechanism, a compressible medium should transmit faster waves if the pressure is higher.

Standing waves alternately compress then dilate the aether substance inside antinodes. Then the wave speed is slower of faster according to the compression ratio and the wave is progressively scattered. Because energy cannot be lost, there is an action and reaction effect which explains the electron amplification process.

Wave gears: pure mechanics.

One easily understands how minutes and hours inside a pendulum clock are converted by means of gears. There should be a 1 : 60 tooth ratio, but the important point is that all teeth must be compatible. Additionally, gears may contain more or less of them using only integers, as one and a half teeth obviously cannot do the job.

This analogy applies to matter. Matter particles really work using "wave gears". Because the electron wavelength is constant, there cannot be any wavelength incompatibility inside matter. And because motion introduces a Doppler effect, hence a wavelength difference, motion inside an atom must generate a specific well defined phenomenon. This explains Planck's constant, hence quanta.


The original "ultraviolet catastrophe" solved by Max Planck was not that simple, but this phenomenon is still a matter of integerwavelength because it is all about the Fresnel number n, which must also be an integer. Augustin Fresnel used it to predict where the axial zero amplitude zones should be located inside the well known Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern below.

The distance L to each zero and maximum amplitude zones is given by:

L = r 2 / (n * lambda)

The radius r is that of a plane circular aperture. The Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern is typically present in the laser or pinhole camera beam, but any composite wave emitter should also produce a similar pattern. Thus, because the atomic nucleus exhibits wave properties and because its structure is obviously composite, it should produce similar schemes along privileged axes. This is not disputable.

Electrons should be very sensitive to those zero amplitude zones. They are likely to be captured inside any of them on a probability basis. The electron capture and expulsion process because of excessive heat then becomes easily explainable. Clearly, each atomic layer radius and the electron behavior inside them is directly linked to this pattern.

On the one hand, any excessive energy input such as heat can cause the electron expulsion and the required energy should be always the same according to a specific Fresnel number. It is a quantum of energy.

On the other hand, after a short period of time, the electron is captured again by another zero amplitude zone. Then it oscillates until it is fully immobilized and this process liberates the same quantum of energy. Oscillations will cause the wave pattern to undulate: this is how the light is emitted. The light frequency is that of the undulations. Finally, the emitted energy is always the same according to a given zero energy zone.

Then one must admit that the well known Balmer series is linked to the Fresnel number.

The hydrogen atom radiates light on frequencies compatible with the Fresnel number.

This is the origin of Planck's constant.

The quantum of energy is definitely correct.

But there are no photons there.

Kinetic energy.

The gain in mass which is responsible for kinetic energy is well known to be given by: gamma * m – m. It was predicted by Lorentz even though he was not aware that the true cause was the Doppler effect. This means that kinetic energy for any material body traveling at .866 c (gamma = 2) equals its own mass at rest. Then kinetic energy for one kilogram is easily given by Einstein's formula. Please note that according to the MKS system, the speed of light c below is: 300 000 000 meters per seconds.

E = m c 2 = c 2 = 9 * 10 ^ 16 joules.

Kinetic energy = (gamma * m – m) c 2

One kilogram mass gain = c 2 = 9 * 10 ^ 16 joules.

To be compared to Newton's mechanics:

Kinetic energy = m v 2 / 2

One kilogram = v 2 / 2 = 3.375 * 10 ^ 16 joules (definitely wrong).


However, both formulae are practically equivalent for slower velocities as far as the gamma factor is very near to 1. For example, let us check 3 million meters per second using m = 1:

beta = .01

gamma = 1.00005

Kinetic energy = (gamma * m – m) c 2

.00005 kilogram mass gain = .00005 * c 2 = 4.5 * 10 ^ 12 joules.

To be compared to Newton's mechanics:

Kinetic energy = m v 2 / 2

1 kg * v 2 / 2 = 3 000 000 ^ 2 / 2 = 4.5 * 10 ^ 12 joules (accurate).

Because the Doppler effect is clearly involved, this is another evidence that matter is made of waves.

The tip of the iceberg.

This page will never be complete because the Lorentz transformations severely modify physics as a whole. The goal was to expose some examples. This web site also contains 33 pages which are more or less dedicated to the Wave Mechanics, and it will become more and more explicit over the years.

This evolution could end up with a cleaner, cheaper, dramatic revolution in the way we are using energy. Unfortunately, this appears unlikely to be possible soon.

I am working on a new series of programs on waves and matter mechanics.

Menu: WaveMechanics00.bas WaveMechanics00.exe








The program WaveMechanics05 deserves careful attention. Now, one can observe 2-D waves undergoing hard or soft reflection on reflectors. There are three display options for amplitude, energy, and also standing waves, thanks to Mr. Marcotte's new calculus using Lagrangian. Reversing the wave direction (they return to their origin) or transforming traveling waves into standing waves is possible. A special function was added in order to check the reflector gain, for example that of the corner reflector, which is surprisingly effective. One can also observe why a parabola produces straight waves capable of staying inside a narrow energy beam.

A new Compiler for FreeBASIC (version 0.20.0b) was released in 2008 with some new requirements. Gosub keywords are not allowed any more and variables including integer must be declared. However, all previous programs will still work properly on condition that they are edited as follows:

#lang "fblite"

Option Gosub

The FreeBASIC IDE editor is available here: http://fbide.freebasic.net/


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | You are here. | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere


Email Please read this notice.

On the Internet since September 2002. Last update October 2, 2009.


ELECTROSTATIC FIELDS

The electrostatic field of force between two electrons produces a repulsion effect.

Additionally, the moving electron mass increases according to the Lorentz gamma factor.

The gain in mass is pure kinetic energy which is transferable to another electron through the field of force.

This mechanism is the result of the Doppler effect and it can easily be explained thanks to Active and Reactive Mass.

The "biconvex" field of force.

Two electrons or positrons emitting all azimuth spherical waves produce the characteristic standing wave set below.


It may be called "biconvex" because only curved waves are adding constructively.

The cross section is similar to the diffractive (or zonal) lens.

Because the field of force may be seen as thousands of stacked lenses focusing towards both electrons, one should indeed expect a strong lens effect from it. But from an optical point of view, those lenses definitely cannot work because the concentric zones are moving away from the center. The phase rotation cancels the focusing effect.

Fortunately, the electron works very much like a stroboscope. This well known device can immobilize any rotating system, and it

http://glafreniere.com/sa_electrostatic.htm

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | You are here. | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

is also true in the case of a phase rotation. The electron is indeed a perfect stroboscope because its standing waves periodically appear everywhere simultaneously, and then disappear. And because a significant part of the electrostatic field is located inside both electrons, this should activate the field of force amplification in such a way that some of the radiated energy is finally transmitted directly towards both electrons. Then the phase coincides and the radiation pressure is much more intense.

On the contrary, the positron quadrature cancels the stroboscope effect and there is no radiation pressure any more. But the equivalent pressure responsible for inertia is still present on the opposite side. This finally ends up with a symmetrical attraction effect.

Additionally, more electrons in the vicinity should add their own standing waves to the process and a synchronization process should take place. Then the electron spin as a common phase or opposite phase (which is simultaneous and allows two spins) becomes evident. Positrons, however, are all hidden inside protons where the required quadrature is present.

Gabriel LaFreniere




http://glafreniere.com/sa_electrostatic.htm

NUCLEAR FORCES

This page will explain how atoms work.

It is a bit more complicated than Leonardo's helicopter, but it is still simpler than one could expect.

This is a quark.

It is made of two electrons which become undetectable because of the powerful gluonic field.

Three quarks placed crosswise can transform into a neutron.

Note the pi / 2 phase offset in the center, where a positron can hide and transform the neutron into a proton.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | You are here. | 16 |

http://glafreniere.com/sa_nuclear.htm

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere




http://glafreniere.com/sa_nuclear.htm

ACTIVE AND REACTIVE MASS

Action and reaction forces are unequal because they are caused by waves undergoing the Doppler effect.

The Doppler effect in wavelength is 1 + beta backward and 1 – beta forward.

The ratio is the same for action and reaction forces and for the Doppler effect.

The gamma factor = 1 / (1 – beta 2) (1 / 2) can also be deduced from the Doppler effect: gamma = (a + r) / m

The mass gain according to: gamma * m – m is also given by: a + r – m in accordance with the Doppler effect.

This strongly suggests that matter is made of waves.


Hendrick A. Lorentz predicted that any fast moving material body should undergo a mass increase. Because matter is made of waves, which should undergo the Doppler effect, its mass or energy increase should be easily evaluated.

The mass must be divided into two parts: active and reactive mass. In order to explain action and reaction, the mass waves traveling forward will be considered active, while backward ones will be reactive.

Let's take an example: suppose that a material body is moving at 86.6% of the speed of light.

The Lorentz beta normalized speed is .866:

beta = v / c

The Lorentz transformation g value is .5:

g = (1 – beta 2) 1 / 2

The gamma factor (the reciprocal 1 / g) is 2 :

gamma = 1 / (1 – beta 2) 1 / 2

So, according to Lorentz : beta = .866 ; g = .5 ; gamma = 2. In order to make things simple, the mass at rest is 1 kg, hence : m = 1. And because the gamma factor is 2, Lorentz predicts that the total mass M will be increased to 2 kg at 86.6% of the speed of light:

M = gamma * m.

Now, let's divide this total mass M into active and reactive parts. While at rest, they both equal .5 kg. However, because this wave system is moving at .866 c, it should also reduce its frequency according to Lorentz: F' = g F. This means that the wave energy should also be reduced according to g.

In addition, those parts undergo the Doppler effect in opposite directions. The forward wavelength contraction is 1 – � and the

backward dilation, 1 + �.

Finally, the active and reactive mass values will be transformed in accordance with equations below:

http://glafreniere.com/sa_active.htm

Active mass: a = 1.866 kg Reactive mass: r = .134 kg

Total mass: M = 1.866 + .134 = 2 kg

M = a + r

M = gamma * m

Active and reactive mass, explaining action and reaction.

Here, the system speed is .5 c, half the speed of light.

a is the active mass, whose contracted waves exert an active force forward.

r is the reactive mass, whose dilated waves exert a reactive force backward.

The same ratio indicates that mass evolves the same way as the Doppler effect does.

a = g m / 2 (1 – beta) r = g m / 2 (1 + beta)

The total mass M is indeed increased to 2 kg exactly as predicted by Lorentz, according to the gamma factor. Actually, the diagram below shows that the mass has been increased in accordance with the Doppler effect. The point is that the wavelength forward contraction is much more severe than the backward dilation. The contraction is unlimited. But the dilation never exceeds 2 times the original wavelength.

Note the equivalence:

beta = (a – r) / (a + r)

On the other hand, the wavelength ratio R is given by:

R = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta)

Or:

R = a / r

So the ratio is the same:

The values 1 + beta and 1 – beta are typical of the Doppler effect. They obviously indicate that such a mass increase is directly linked to the Doppler effect. I would like to emphasize here that Mr. Milo Wolff had already noticed this. He did not propose the correct formulas, though.


ACTIVE AND REACTIVE FORCES

"Pseudo-standing waves" in the vicinity of the electron's central core.

Active mass waves are moving to the right and reactive ones to the left.

The A amplitude (and wavelength) R ratio is given by: R = (1 + beta) / (1 – beta)

Here, v = .5 c, hence: beta = .5 ; R = 3; A1 = 75 % ; A2 = 25 %.

Plane "pseudo-standing waves": v = .5 c ; beta = .5 ; A1 = 65 % ; A2 = 35 %.

Here, you must imagine that you are moving to the right at the same speed.

The nodes and antinodes are bouncing on each other as a result of opposite forces;

this explains the radiation pressure mechanism.

One hundred years ago, Lorentz predicted such a mass increase, as well as clocks ticking slower. Today, those effects have been carefully verified. Because they are linked to the Doppler effect, this strongly indicates that matter is made of waves.

In addition, because waves are carrying energy, the mass indicates that matter contains energy, which implies active and reactive forces. Such forces are the result of the radiation pressure. They clearly involve waves.

Let's repeat that while two observers are moving at the same speed and in the same direction, they cannot detect the Doppler effect between them. This explains why two electrons moving together will act and react as if they were at rest. Their behavior is relative.Newton established that action and reaction should be equal, but this is true only from their own point of view.

Action and reaction forces always seem equal from those observers' own point of view. Henri Poincaré discovered in 1904 that the laws of all physical phenomena are the same whatever the system speed. He predicted that this should lead to some "new mechanics"; he was right.

From an absolute point of view, though, all forces are subject to the Doppler effect.

This should seem obvious in the animated diagrams below. It shows what is wrongly called "standing waves". These waves actually are moving to the right at .5 c, and you must imagine that you are following them at the same speed. Please observe that both the frequency and the amplitude are different forward and backward.

The diagram shown above represents the electron's active and reactive waves along the displacement axis only.

Observe that the compressed waves are three times shorter, but that they also seem to move to the right three times slower. So their effective frequency (more exactly their rate) remains the same in both directions.

This explains why the Doppler effect cannot be detected inside any moving frame of reference. For the same reason, any electron following or preceding another one with act or react with it in the same way.

The animated diagram below shows plane "pseudo-standing waves":


Hemispheric waves incoming from the left and outgoing to the right, simulating the immobile electron's active mass.

The complete electron stays at rest because of the identical and opposite wave set, which contains the reactive mass.

But as soon as the active waves become stronger, the central antinode is constantly pushed forward.

The above diagram shows that the nodes' and antinodes' speed is not constant inside a pseudo-standing wave set while both the wavelength and the amplitude are not the same.

In addition to being pushed forward, they are somehow "shaken" as a consequence of the non linearity of the active and reactive forces.

Radiation pressure.

This phenomenon indicates that the electron central antinode should be very sensitive to the radiation pressure caused by any additional wave. While more waves are added from one direction, the electron normal inertia is destroyed. The particle can be accelerated or slowed down. It can also be deviated.

I made a very sophisticated computer program in order to show how ingoing hemispheric waves would behave in the vicinity of their center of curvature. This program does not use any equation, just Huygens' Principle. Because this principle has never been invalidated, this program is the most accurate and reliable ever. If you do not believe me, please note that this phenomenon can be verified using hemispheric ingoing sound waves.

There is no Doppler effect inside a system at rest. Then the active mass and the reactive mass are equal. As soon as the forces become unequal, the central antinode is pushed forward, and the waves undergo the Doppler effect. Then the wavelengths are no longer the same and the electron will go on moving constantly.

Inertia.

This was Newton's first law as the Inertia Principle. However, Galileo had already described this. Both of them had stated that any moving object should go on moving on a straight line unless it is slowed down, accelerated or deviated by some force.

This behavior may seem obvious, but it had to be explained. One must also explain why and how such a force can destroy the normal equilibrium. This is especially important because one must also reconcile the existence of the aether. Returning back to the 19th century, this had been a rather painful problem. Most physicists were aware that:

" Aether does not affect motion ".

Let's face it: apparently, inertia is incompatible with the existence of the aether. But as soon as one realizes that matter is made of waves, this objection is no longer relevant.

The action and reaction law.

Separating matter waves into active and reactive forces will allow us to predict in a very convincing way the action and reaction phenomenon. Because the Doppler effect is perfectly reversible, just the speed difference (not the absolute speed) must be taken into account. Two billiard balls hitting each other will behave in accordance with the Doppler effect. It is that simple.

Firstly, one must realize that there is no true contact. While one ball is hitting another one, a force occurs because, for very small distances, electrons inside atoms or molecules come much closer than protons. Mostly there is an electrostatic negative force hence a repulsion effect. This force is the result of waves exerting a radiation pressure. According to the wave mechanics, all forces including contact pressure act by means of waves. Moreover, this pressure changes according to the cosine of the impact angle, exactly the way the Doppler effect does, as given by:

lambda' = lambda * (1 – beta cos phi) F ' = F / (1 – beta cos phi)


The phi angle is postulated to be 0 straight ahead and reaches 180° on the axis backward. This hypothesis indicates that oblique collisions indeed work according to Pythagoras' theorem and to Newton's laws.

For instance, the force ratio for any material body traveling at .866 c would be 1.866 vs. .5 only for a similar one which is at rest. There is just one situation where the old action and reaction law is still valid. This occurs when one of them is at rest and when the collision angle is 0:

" For any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. "

According to Lorentz and Poincaré, this law proves to be wrong. The problem mostly arises because of the mass increase. In addition, any observer may consider himself at rest in accordance with the law of Relativity. From an absolute point of view, he is not though. This observer may look at two billiard balls which are both moving, and so there are three different speeds involved.

Because of its reciprocity, one simply cannot use Einstein's Relativity in order to calculate three moving frames of reference simultaneously. A contradiction immediately appears. For the same reason, Henri Poincaré's symmetrical equations are useless. The best example would be two electrons traveling at .9999c in opposite directions inside a synchrotron. From the collider point of view, their relative speed obviously can reach almost two times the speed of light, and this is impossible according to Relativity.

I strongly believe that, realizing this, Poincaré would not have doubted the aether. Working together with Lorentz, their version of Relativity would have prevailed.

There indeed is a Lorentzian Relativity, but Lorentz neglected to word it. Nobody did until many recent studies made it suddenly reappear. I strongly aver that it is the correct one. The action and reaction problem demands Lorentz's version of Relativity, not Poincaré's nor Einstein's. Then one can examine the transformation values for two moving bodies and finally determine how they will act and react.

Action and reaction are linked to the Doppler effect.

Thanks to Lorentz, a new action and reaction law could be worded this way:

"Any action produces a simultaneous reaction proportional to the wave energy undergoing the Doppler effect, and in the direction opposite to the waves' origin."

Some waves can exert a negative action, hence an attractive force. Gravity, for example, the shade effect, opposite electrostatic charges, etc. Then the reaction is also negative. For mechanical reasons, a true attraction effect is impossible and all true forces are positive. An attractive force is actually a positive force due to incoming waves from the opposite direction.

Because of the Doppler effect, action and reaction are not really simultaneous; the waves' relative speed is no longer the same in opposite directions. But from the observer's point of view, it seems to be the same. Lorentzian Relativity shows that the clocks do not indicate the same time along the displacement axis, producing a virtual simultaneity.

The action and reaction process also justifies the conservation of mass and energy. The above example shows that when a billiard ball hits another one, the mass increase responsible for kinetic energy is simply transferred to it and the two balls' total mass remains unchanged.

Causes and effects.

Action and reaction should be distinguished from causes and effects. This is highly discussable, but a true cause and effect process cannot be simultaneous in order to obtain a domino effect. The wave mechanics proposes a new Causality Principle involving the aether waves:

"Any effect has a cause, any effect becomes a new cause, and any cause is transmitted by the aether waves at the speed of light."

Explaining this process from a mechanical point of view, let's consider kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy.

Because a mass increase occurs, the kinetic energy is not given by: E = m v 2 / 2 according to Newton. While a material body is moving at .866 c, the mass is doubled and this kinetic energy is worth exactly its mass at rest. Moreover, this mass as energy does not need to be stopped during a collision, and so one must establish a new equation according to Poincaré's expectations:

"We will perhaps need to invent some new mechanics that we can hardly foresee where inertia increases with the speed in such a way that the speed of light would be an insuperable limit."

Clearly, the gain in mass, which equals: a + r – m or: � m – m, is responsible for kinetic energy. And because the body's total mass is doubled at .866 c, one must realize that half of its mass contains solely kinetic energy. Two identical energy or mass values are hiding inside the same body, and they have the same properties. Moreover, both of them are linked to the famous c squared, and also to the Doppler effect. This strongly indicates that those two masses are identical and that they have a wave nature.

Poincaré could not know that. But today, no doubt, one can proclaim that the waves responsible for matter are the same ones which are responsible for kinetic energy. Inertia is the response to a force, and they oppose themselves. We are dealing with waves, and waves contain energy because they produce a radiation pressure, hence a force. Mass is the measure of inertia, and this allows us to allot to the aether waves an equivalent mass.

Poincaré indeed gave the equivalent of Einstein's formula in connection with the inertia of waves. Because matter is made of waves, his formula becomes highly important and strangely relevant:

m = E / c 2


hence, quite obviously:

E = m c 2

Mr. Jules Leveugle writes that in 1900, Henri Poincaré did establish that the electromagnetic radiation has such an equivalent inertia. He adds that F. Hassenhörl and G. Lebon (who was wrong because of the division by two) also proposed similar schemes. Once again, Poincaré did precede Albert Einstein.

I personally affirm that electromagnetic waves do not exist. The nature of radio and light waves is the same as all other aether waves, which are responsible for action and reaction. Knowing this, and even if Poincaré was not fully aware of his discovery, his equation was published in 1900, well before Einstein's 1905 paper. So it must prevail. I did not read Poincaré's text, but I presume that his reasoning was as good as Einstein's.

Einstein did nothing but again take the corollary, which is the inertial reaction that a material body would oppose to a light pulse. He had most probably read Poincaré's paper, and so his "discovery" is no longer amazing.

Explaining Newton's division by two.

Firstly, let's review the MKS (meter, kilogram, second) units system:

1 - The mass m in kilograms.

2- The energy E in joules.

3- The c and v speed in meters per second, and so: c = 1000 times 300 000 km.

Newton's formula for kinetic energy works for small speeds, but otherwise it becomes wrong:

E = m v 2 / 2

This division by two can easily be explained. When a billiard ball hits another one which is at rest, half of the kinetic energy must be used in order to stop the moving ball. The other half can push the other ball until it reaches the same speed. However, for projectiles moving at a speed very near to the speed of light, its total mass is much greater then its mass at rest. The energy needed in order to stop such a small part of the projectile is negligible, and so most of the kinetic energy becomes fully effective. In such a case it is doubled:

E = m v 2

And because such a fast speed is almost the speed of light, one obtains almost:

E = m c 2

So this reasoning can demonstrate in a new and spectacular way that this famous equation is relevant.

The total mass M is increased according to � m, or the reciprocal m / g (the Lorentz contraction g value is worth 1 / �). Then the division by 2 must be tempered in order to become almost null (division by 1) while the speed is very near to the speed of light. Then the g value is almost zero.

This leads to the following equations:

E = M v 2 / (1 + g)

E = m v 2 / (g + g 2)

These formulas yield the same results as the standard one shown below, on the right.

Mass and energy.

One can use any of the three formulas below in order to obtain the correct value for kinetic energy. The one on the right is well acknowledged today. Let's repeat that the m mass is in kilograms, the speed in meters per second and the energy in joules. Then the kinetic energy stored inside the mass of any moving material body is given by:

E = m v 2 / (g + g 2) E = (a + r – m) c 2 E = (gamma��m – m) c 2

Its total energy is given by:

E = (a + r) c 2 E = gamma�� m * c 2

When the material body approaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy is almost equal to its total energy. Clearly, this energy which itself opposes inertia, and which is linked to the Doppler effect, has the same properties as the mass at rest. This mass is the measure of inertia in any case.

So matter is nothing but canned energy, and energy as well as inertia definitely can be evaluated in grams. This means that units such as the joule are redundant, hence useless:

1 Kg = c 2 joules.


The rubber balls analogy.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | You are here. |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Poincaré showed that any radiation contains energy, hence an equivalent mass which can be evaluated in grams. He was also well aware that any radiation could exert a radiation pressure. However, matter only is subject to this pressure in accordance with its inertia..

All forces including gravity are caused by waves. Because the radiation pressure is effective on matter standing waves only, gravity cannot bend the light path. We know very well that the light does deviate near the sun, but one surely can explain this phenomenon in a different way. I presume that the solar wind or interstellar particles could be involved.

The rubber balls analogy.

Surprisingly, as seen in the formulas showed above, all happens as if, inside matter, the energy was constantly moving at the speed of light.

This gives raise to this stunning analogy:

Any material body acts or reacts as if it were a finite box containing millions of rubber balls which where constantly moving in all directions.

In order to avoid losses, one can imagine an orbiting metal box containing 100% vacuum and hundreds of such moving rubber balls which are postulated to be absolutely lossless. If the box is accelerating, those balls become faster in the direction of motion. Conversely, they become slower backward. They undergo a sort of Doppler effect, but the wave contraction or dilation is reverted. The balls become more distant from each other in the direction of motion. This effect is cancelled by the balls speed, which is faster. When they are bouncing on the box surface, they communicate their kinetic energy to the box.

Let's consider that the box itself has no mass and no inertia. This phenomenon may explain why such a moving box will go on moving. It will indeed explain inertia. As seen above, the active mass waves are pushing on the electron's core this way, explaining both its speed and inertia.

Finally, lets suppose that a second box hits the first one. During this process there is no box surface between them. Then the balls will move freely from one box to another; they will push on the boxes opposite surface. This is the equivalent of the radiation pressure. Moreover a certain number of balls will definitely be transferred to the first box. This is the equivalent of the increase in mass.

Basically and mechanically, the active and reactive mass work like this. But such a wonder can only be achieved by waves. Once again, this strongly indicates that matter is made of waves.

The speed of light is an insuperable limit.

The active mass, hence the total mass trends toward infinite while a material body approaches the speed of light. This means that Poincaré was amazingly right in 1904 when he stated that the speed of light is an insuperable limit.

Many people misapprehend that some phenomena involve speeds faster then the speed of light, but they are wrong. On the one hand, matter can approach the speed of light, but it simply cannot reach it. On the other hand, all forces are transmitted by aether waves, whose speed is constant and equal to that of light.

Firstly, action and reaction implies simultaneous effects, and this may induce an error.

Secondly, one can also act on some invisible and unknown intermediate field such as an electromagnetic one. This field is made of plane standing waves between two electrons. It may be considered as virtual matter which is fully subject to the radiation pressure even when those electrons are very distant from each other. Clearly, while acting on this field, one will obtain a simultaneous effect on both electrons, but this effect will seem to have happened instantly.

Because photons do not exist, one cannot affirm that those photons may have changed suddenly and simultaneously well after the light has been emitted. One must realize that light is transmitted without any change only inside a vacuum. As soon as it encounters matter, which may be transparent as well, some new light is constantly created which interferes with the previous one. Its polarization or its phase may certainly be modified during the propagation process.

So any instantaneous action at a distance is impossible. Some experiments may indicate that it is possible, but they surely have been misinterpreted.


Gabriel LaFreniere





KINETIC ENERGY

The moving billiard ball transfers all of its kinetic energy to the stationary one.

This is possible because reciprocal active and reactive mass (a, r) is exchanged through the intermediate field of force.

Lorentz discovered that moving matter contains additional mass as kinetic energy, which is given by:

E = (gamma – 1) m c 2

The Newtonian formula below proves to be inaccurate because Newton was unaware of this additional mass.

E = m v 2 / 2

However, thanks to Lorentz's discovery, I could solve this problem.

Now, the Newtonian formula is perfectly accurate at any speed.

It turns out that Newton's mechanics is easily upgradeable. It is still the best choice.

UPGRADING NEWTON'S KINETIC ENERGY

Matter mechanics is highly dependant on kinetic energy, which is the consequence of motion. In the absence of motion, there would be no mechanics. Because it is a measure for a given motion inside a given space, the time itself would become meaningless.

In addition, matter is made of waves and all forces are caused by waves. Thus, matter mechanics should be called the wave mechanics, albeit it is more specifically the fields of force mechanics.

And finally, waves plus motion obviously lead to the Doppler effect. This web site has demonstrated a long time ago that the Lorentz Transformations are just a special Doppler effect which applies to the electron. This is why it becomes more and more powerful at very high speed.

This page explains why and how kinetic energy is related to this additional energy. Then it will become clear that Newton's laws are preferable to Einstein's mechanics because they are well known and much more understandable. However, they need some adjustment in order to hold perfectly true.

The field of force contains pure kinetic energy.

Two bags filled with sand cannot produce an elastic collision. Some of the energy is rather converted into heat, making the final result very hard to analyze. So let's take a better example. Suppose that one billiard ball hits another billiard ball head-on .

In this case, the repulsive force is that of the electrons, which behave like springs because of the Coulomb force. There are billions of them and they come very close together when both surfaces collide. At this moment, the electrostatic field, which is made of standing waves, contains a maximum of energy. It is potential energy because it will be transferred to the other ball.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_kinetic.htm


It is made out of traveling waves incoming from two electrons or positrons.

This produces standing waves, which are amplified afterwards by all other waves in the vicinity.

It is a well known fact that standing waves contain energy. Here, the field of force is only a temporary one. It is made out of waves emitted by electrons.

I showed in the page on standing waves that in case of motion, standing waves transform into "moving standing waves". In this case, nodes and antinodes are still present but they are moving according to the forward vs. backward Doppler ratio. Then the energy is transferred at the same speed, which is always slower than the speed of light.

That is why the field of force acts just like a spring. All of its potential energy, hence mass, was borrowed from the first ball and it is transferred to the second one.

The energy calculus.

Newton was totally unaware of this process. Surely, the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy below needs a severe upgrade.

E = m v 2 / 2

In this formula, E stands for energy in joules and m for mass in kilograms. Distances being in meters, v stands for matter speed and c for the speed of light in meters per second. This equation was forged by Voltaire's wife, Emilie Du Chatelet. However, the calculus leading to this achievement originated most certainly from Leibniz, who also created the differential calculus independently from Newton. It can easily be derived from Newton's two main equations on acceleration, especially f = m*a.

The Newtonian formula contains two errors.

It was discovered more than a century ago that this formula becomes inaccurate at very high "relativistic" speed. Lorentz found that mass should increase according to the gamma factor. This should be considered as one of the Lorentz transformations because matter contracts and clocks slow down according to the same "g" ratio.

Below, capital M stands for mass while matter is moving very fast. The mass gain is added to the mass at rest and it can easily be obtained using Lorentz's gamma factor: gamma = 1/g.

M = gamma * m

Today, it is well known that mass is a measure of matter inertia and also a measure of its energy. The total mass M increases according to the gamma factor. It becomes theoretically infinite at the speed of light so that any speed faster than the speed of light is impossible. For instance, a billiard ball whose mass at rest was 1 kg transforms into a 2 kg ball and it becomes two times shorter (only on the x axis) at 86.6% of the speed of light according to the gamma factor (gamma = 2; g = 0.5).

The spherical billiard ball shown above on the right hand side is accelerated to 0.866 c and it is submitted to the Lorentz transformations. It becomes a squashed ellipsoid 50% shorter and its mass is doubled to 2 kg.

Because its inertia is also doubled, the ball cannot be accelerated again to 2 * 0.866 = 1.732 c using the same amount of energy. Additionally, this speed is much faster than the speed of light. Adding another kilogram of energy would rather increase its total mass M from 2 to 3 kg. Then gamma = 3, g = 1/3 and the new beta normalized speed is given by:

beta = Sqr(1 – g 2 )

Thus, if the billiard ball was accelerated again using the same amount of energy, it would accelerate from 0.866 to 0.9428 c.

Let's take an example.

The example below should be useful in order to understand better the action and reaction process.


Beta normalized speed: beta = v / c = sin 60° = (1 – g 2) 1 / 2 = 0.866

Speed of light: c = 300 000 000 m/s (accurate: 299 792 458 m/s).

Matter velocity: v = beta * c = 259 807 621 m/s

Gamma factor: gamma = 1 / (1 – beta 2) 1 / 2 = 1 / g = 2

Lorentz's shrinking factor: g = (1 – beta 2) 1 / 2 = 1 / gamma = 0.5

Stationary intrinsic mass: m = 1 kg

Total mass for fast moving matter: M = gamma * m = 2 kg

Mass gain: G = gamma * m – m = (gamma – 1) m = 1 kg

Stationary intrinsic mass energy : E = m c 2 = c 2 = 9 * 10 16 joules.

1 – The mass gain for fast moving matter must be taken into account.

The first step is to modify the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy in such a way that the mass gain is taken into account. This is obtained quite simply by applying the gamma factor:

E = m v 2 / 2 is replaced by: E = gamma * m v 2 / 2

However, this new formula still yields incorrect results. Poincare (followed by Einstein) rather elaborated this equation:

E = (gamma * m – m) c 2 or: E = (gamma – 1) m c 2

This formula proves to be perfectly accurate. The gain in mass is indeed given by: G = (gamma – 1) m = 1

So that: E = G c 2 = c 2 = 9 * 10 16 joules.

Here, the speed was carefully chosen in order to obtain kinetic energy which equals the mass at rest: exactly one kilogram. The next step will be to explain why the modified Newtonian formula elaborated above still does not work. It seems that the division by 2 needs some more adjustment.

2 – Slowing down fast moving matter needs energy.

Newton stated that action and reaction are equal, but Lorentz showed that this principle was wrong at high speed. The purpose of the division by 2 was that half of kinetic energy had to be used in order to stop the incoming billiard ball. This is indeed a well known Newtonian law: the moving billiard ball needs energy to be slowed down and the stationary ball needs energy to accelerate. As long as the speed is not too fast, the process is perfectly symmetrical and this is why the Newtonian formula using only one half of the energy yields fairly accurate results:

E = m v 2 / 2

However, the energy required to stop the moving ball never changes because it always returns to its 1 kg original mass. On the contrary, the accelerating ball needs two times more energy. This indicates that a ball moving at nearly the speed of light, which contains more than 1000 kg for example, needs only 1/1000 of this energy to be fully stopped. It becomes negligible in comparison, so that most of the energy is used to accelerate the other ball. In such a case, a more accurate equation should be:

E = gamma * m v 2 / 1

E = M v 2

This strongly suggests the well-known formula: E = mc^2. The equivalence between intrinsic energy and kinetic energy now becomes obvious. And it becomes clear that the division by two is wrong. It should rather be modified progressively according to Lorentz's factor. Then one finally obtains a perfectly accurate equation:

E = gamma * m v 2 / (g + 1)

E = m v 2 / (g * (g + 1))


The revisited Newtonian formula for kinetic energy.

Now, it is perfectly accurate whatever the speed.

E = m v 2 / (g 2 + g) = c 2 = 9 * 10 16 joules.

With : m = 1 ; v = 259 807 621 m/s ; c = 300 000 000 m/s ; g = 0,5.

Please check that it is equivalent to Poincare's formula: E = (gamma – 1) m c 2

So, quite reasonably, upgrading the Newtonian equation on kinetic energy using Lorentz's discoveries is possible. What's more, following the same path, it also becomes possible to upgrade all of Newton's laws and mechanics. This new approach appears much easier to deal with than Einstein's General Relativity. We should now feel more confident because we can explain why and how things happen.

Matter contains mass which is indestructible.

More than 99% of matter mass, especially when it is stationary, contains potential energy which was borrowed from kinetic energy. It is mostly stocked more or less permanently inside gluonic fields. This will be explained in other pages, especially those on quarks and protons.

It becomes clear that, in spite of the famous mc squared formula, most of matter potential energy is unreachable. But I am still convinced that some day, it should become possible to extract significant quantities of it. For instance, I suppose that electrons and positrons, which are hidden inside quarks, are capable of moving to and fro on a given frequency. This suggests that a resonance phenomenon could cause them to be ejected from the quark, and this would liberate the kinetic energy which was captured in the gluonic field. Such a fission by resonance should also be possible for quarks inside a whole proton or neutron. However, this technology would be complex. It appears to stand well beyond our current capabilities.

On the one hand, an iron atom contains more than 99% of its energy inside gluonic fields which are highly stable. It can be destroyed into smaller atoms, but this process can by no means deliver energy. Actually, it needs energy.

On the other hand, two deuterium atoms contain inside their proton and neutron much more energy than after their fusion into helium because it is all about how the gluonic field structure is performed. But for atoms heavier then iron, the gluonic fields are becoming again more rich in energy. Heavy and unstable atoms such as plutonium contain more energy for a given quantity of protons and neutrons. Once again, this occurs because the gluonic field structure is different, making their standing waves more powerful.

I suppose that electrons and positrons, whose mass is less than 1% of matter energy, are almost indestructible. Scientists systematically explain that they "annihilate" when they collide. But this appears to be much too simple an explanation because they do not speak about the gluonic field, which is certainly the chief cause of the enormous quantity of energy which is liberated. I strongly think that, when the powerful gluonic field is destroyed, the radiation following the explosion could very well hide the electron and the positron which are liberated. This is comparable to stars becoming invisible during the day because of the sun.

A huge number of electrons and positrons distributed in a finite space should lead to their acceleration because of the Coulomb force, and ultimately to their junction as quarks. If they do not instantly destroy, there is a small chance that three of them become a neutron, and then a more stable proton. The important point is that kinetic energy is converted into potential energy inside gluonic fields in such a way that matter finally contains much more energy then that of its electrons and positrons. The gluonic field shown below is the result of the addition of the electron and positron standing waves. However, they are amplified afterwards, making the two initial particles relatively much less energetic.

The electron and the positron phase oscillate according to a quarter of period offset.

Firstly, the wave addition produces standing waves, especially along the axis.


Secondly, the gluonic field is amplified into a quark in such a way that the particles seem much weaker.

Energy is linked to the speed of light squared.

It was shown that a 1 kg mass gain is equivalent to the energy given by the famous mc squared formula.

E = c 2

E = 9 * 10 16 joules.

According to our example, it is the amount of kinetic energy which is stocked inside a billiard ball whose mass at rest was 1 kg but whose speed is now 0.866 c. Quite certainly, the two billiard balls would be destroyed at such a speed, but it is not the point.

This new way of seeing the process definitely confirms that the famous mc squared equation is highly relevant. This is no surprise, but it is about time that scientists realize that energy is strongly dependant on the speed of light. Matter behaves this way because it contains waves whose speed is that of the light. This constant speed is actually that of all aether waves, including the light and matter itself.

More examples.

If you doubt this, below is an equation which systematically yields a one kilogram gain in mass whatever the mass at rest. Then Lorentz's contraction factor is given by:

g = m / (m + 1)

For example, Lorentz's factor is 0.2 for a 0,25 kg stationary mass. Because the mass is increased to: M = 1.25 kg, the mass gain is indeed one kilogram exactly and in this case, the beta normalized speed is given by:

beta = (1 – g 2) 1 / 2

beta = 0.979795897

v = beta = 293938769 m/s m = 0.25 kg g = 0.2

E = c 2 = 0.25 v 2 / (0.2 2 + 0.2) = 9 * 10 16 joules.

Henri Poincare was a pioneer.

Let's compare the mass for stationary matter to the gain in mass as kinetic energy. We are in the presence of two apparently separate entities which nevertheless are present in the same object and share the same properties. Energy for both of them is given by the same m c squared equation. What's more, their behavior is clearly linked to the Doppler effect: this was demonstrated in the previous page on active and reactive mass. All this strongly suggests that we are in the presence of waves, and that those two mass entities could actually be the same wave system simply growing up.

Standing waves responsible for stationary matter, which contain intrinsic energy according to mc^2, may additionally contain potential energy. This occurs when the system is no longer stationary as a result of the wave compression, which is a mere consequence of the Doppler effect. Moreover, inertia is a resistance to a force, which produces an acceleration according to f = m*a. This is quite possible solely in the presence of waves. All standing waves contain energy. In the presence of another standing wave set, the wave addition and the subsequent amplification by more aether waves traveling in the vicinity surely can exert a radiation pressure. This scheme indicates that all other aether waves and especially the light also contain energy. Thus, they may also be considered as mass.

Poincare was unaware of this as a whole, but he nevertheless thought that the light energy could indeed be compared to mass. He found the equivalent of the famous m*c^2 equation before Einstein. It becomes clear that his formula below is strangely relevant and that it must definitely be considered as a giant step:

m = E / c 2

And obviously:

E = m c 2

Mr. Jules Leveugle reports that as soon as 1900, Henri Poincare established that mass (and the corresponding inertia and energy) could be one of the properties of light and that he then released this formula. He was thus well in advance as compared to Einstein.

Unfortunately, Poincare was absolutely convinced that he was dealing with "electromagnetic waves". Such waves do not exist. The light, including all radio waves, is rather made of regular aether waves. Such waves are responsible for all action and reaction forces. I could not examine Poincare's document because I live in North America, not in France. Some of his works are not easily available because Poincare was not allowed to publish them in most French scientific publications. Although I ignore how he came to this conclusion, I am quite sure that his reasoning was as good as that of Einstein.


NEWTON'S LAWS ON MOTION REVISITED

Einstein only established the corollary, that is to say the reaction that a material body would oppose to a given quantity of emitted light. His attitude was unfair because he never quoted Poincare. Most scientists consider that Einstein found the famous equation alone. However, it is a well known fact that he was fully aware of Poincare's works. So there is no place for admiration here: on the contrary, it is a shame.

The mass gain according to Poincare.

Mr. Serge Cabala reveals interesting information about what was going on in the scientific world around 1900. The important point is that Poincare's analysis was received in Palermo (French editors were not available!) in July 1905 but that he had already transmitted a note to the French Academy of Science on June 5, 1905, hence before the publication of Einstein's Special Relativity in Sept. 1905.

Lorentz predicted that matter should undergo a greater inertia at high speed. This was well verified as soon as 1904, but the electron was a special case because of its electric charge. Its inertia proved to be different axially and transversally. However, in the case of matter, Poincare found that the mass gain should be given by:

E = gamma * m c 2

Obviously, when matter is stationary, the gamma factor is 1 and it can be removed from the equation. Then one obtains again the famous equation:

E = m c 2

Active and reactive forces.

From an absolute point of view, hence according to Lorentz, action and reaction effects are not equal because of the Doppler effect. All fields of force contain energy which is radiated toward matter in opposite directions. All aether waves can exert a radiation pressure on matter. Before examining Newton's laws, one must be aware that this basic wave mechanism is subject to Lorentz's Doppler effect. The more a wave is compressed, the more the force is powerful. I must repeat again that this was demonstrated in the previous page on active and reactive mass.

Action and reaction forces are unequal because they are caused by waves undergoing the Doppler effect.

Because kinetic energy is not a mystery any more, we are now ready to upgrade Newton's laws on matter mechanics.

Newton's laws prove to be fairly accurate most of the time. They are still in usage today, probably because Einstein's mechanics is horribly complex. Even engineers working for NASA or on the GPS system are very uncomfortable with Einstein. Unfortunately, fast moving matter no longer behave like Newton predicted. The chief cause of the error is that the wave properties of matter had not yet been discovered. The Doppler effect leads to more and more energy as a consequence of the wave compression. Inertia proves to be progressive in such a way that the speed of light is unreachable for matter. Poincare was well aware of such a progressive inertia as soon as 1904:


Henri Poincare's "new mechanics".

Lorentz and Poincare already constructed a large part of the building, but because of the wave nature of matter it desperately needs a new cornerstone. The goal here is to obtain more accurate results, but starting from scratch by totally replacing Newton's laws appears quite a challenge. Revisiting Lorentz's Relativity and Newton's laws is a better option because they are much more understandable than Einstein's Relativity. In addition, they are compatible with Euclidean geometry.

Newton's mechanics is upgradeable,

So let's upgrade Newton's laws. This is only a first try, but I am quite sure that they will some day become perfectly accurate and still easy to understand in spite of the fact that the absolute version of Lorentz's Relativity indicates that they are totally false. The point is that the absolute truth will always remain hidden. Mainly because of the Doppler effect, we are dealing with appearances. We have no choice: we must accept Relativity.

We have to deal with variable mass and with the Lorentz transformations. Those new behaviors must be integrated to Newton's mechanics in order to obtain the more accurate new mechanics. Then all phenomena will seem to occur as predicted, from a relative point of view. This point of view must also be chosen carefully. It should be a preferred frame of reference in order to avoid paradoxes (not to say contradictions) which are common in Einstein's version.

Newton's second law is especially confusing because it indicates that a force must be applied to a material body in order to change its velocity or direction. As long as no force is applied, it is much simpler to consider that this body is stationary. In this case, the Lorentz transformations do not apply and the mass is simply the mass at rest. It is already well admitted that the center of inertia, even for multiple material bodies undergoing action and reaction forces, cannot undergo any direction or speed variation. Finally, only the speed difference must be applied separately to those bodies and the Lorentz transformations are not to be taken into account if this difference is not important. In this case, one should consider that Newton's laws are already correct. If the speed difference appears important (relativistic speed), it is still possible to apply the mass gain and the Lorentz transformations.

The preferred frame of reference.

Two different formulas for kinetic energy are now available. Poincare's one is absolute because the frame of reference is postulated to be stationary with respect to the aether. The revisited Newtonian one is rather relative to the observer's frame of reference, which must however be chosen carefully. Surprisingly, they both yield accurate results. This is quite comforting as compared to Einstein's Relativity, which was rather plagued with paradoxes which could easily be interpreted as contradictions. For example, two observers whose speed differs always see "the other one" being contracted. This annoying reciprocity should be avoidable. The situation is even worse if more than two observers moving at different speeds are present. The choice of an acceptable frame of reference as a convention suddenly appears crucial.

The next page on fields of force explains that those fields exert a radiation pressure in two opposite directions. The forward and backward force is proportional to the wave contraction or dilation in accordance with the Doppler effect. However, it always appear equal on both sides on condition that the field of force is postulated to be stationary at the center of inertia of the system. Then Newton's equal and opposite action and reaction law holds true. The important point is that the center of inertia may easily be considered constantly at rest because interactions between many material bodies do not change its status. It is the perfect place for a truly impartial and reliable arbitrator. This leads to much simpler calculus because Relativity (even Lorentzian) is no longer to be considered. Let's be honest: nobody could really deal with Relativity, including Einstein himself! However, the gain in mass and the Lorentz transformations still apply.

We are aware that Newton's original mechanics works well on condition that the speed is reasonably slow. It is now possible to upgrade it. It will be perfectly accurate at any speed under three conditions:

1. - The center of inertia as a preferred frame of reference should be identified.

2. - The mass gain must be taken into account.

3. - Mater transforms according to Lorentz's equations.

This should make us happy. We definitely prefer avoiding relativistic effects, such as trying to see how the world would look like if we were following an electron inside a large collider at nearly the speed of light. We can observe two electrons traveling in opposite directions colliding at nearly two times the speed of light. This is true as seen from the collider, but not as seen in a fast moving frame of reference because any speed faster than the speed of light is impossible. It is definitely easier to rely on Newton's laws.

Let's make it simple.

"We will perhaps need to invent some new mechanics that we can hardly foresee, where inertia increases with the speed in such a way that the speed of light would be an insuperable limit."


We definitely prefer avoiding a complex tensorial calculus in order to obtain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Almost nobody on this planet could obtain the correct result, especially because all other planets are involved and also because the correct frame of reference should also be considered. As a matter of fact, considering the whole solar system, the sun itself is rotating around a center of inertia. And this idea of bending space is totally absurd. Let's face it: Einstein's method is quite weird.

Gravity does not obey exactly Newton's equation for Mercury's short distance to the sun. This occurs for the same reason that there is no gravity at all in the center of the sun while the formula yields an infinite result. Near to the sun, some of its mass exerts a gravity force from an angle. Thus, the gravity curve is bending there much the same way Ricci tensors do. It is very easy to arbitrarily make them reach the point which produces the correct perihelia precession. Frankly, the so-called "error" is frankly negligible and does not invalidate Newton's equation. It just indicates that other anomalies are present and that they should be identified.

Let's be clear: gravity is just an ordinary force. Basically, it obeys Newton's equation, albeit some situations need additional correction. In a very fast moving frame of reference, all forces are submitted to relativistic effects. Not just gravity. Surely, establishing a complex, hard to manage "General Relativity" especially for gravity was totally ridiculous and unnecessary.

We need a more simple, universal method in order to obtain more accurate results, and revisiting Newton's laws of motion appears to be the best one.

The field of force.

Energy is the effect or the cause of a force which is applied during a given period of time or along a given distance. It may produce an acceleration or a deceleration, and it can also change the direction. Matter velocity is well known to be kinetic energy, but potential energy as a material field of force is not yet well accepted. The important point is that a field of force is capable of accelerating matter thanks to the radiation pressure. The best example is the electrostatic field of force shown above.

Two electrons or two positrons produce a repulsive field of force while an electron and a positron rather produce an attractive field of force. In both cases, the result is an acceleration, hence kinetic energy.

This occurs because electrons or positrons are constantly pulsating spherical waves. The space between two of them is automatically filled with standing waves, which are responsible for the Coulomb force.

Those standing waves are amplified by all aether waves in the vicinity, the same way electrons are. The more they are close together, the more they contain energy. This energy is returned toward both particles and the phase determines whether the effect will be attraction or repulsion.

I was able to show recently that, on condition that the medium is compressible (such as air), standing waves are capable of modifying the speed of waves traveling along the axis. This phenomenon will be easily verifiable using acoustic devices. It becomes clear that waves may exhibit variable behaviors depending on the medium properties. They definitely have a "personality". For example, larger waves on water travel much faster than small waves. Yet, most physicists still rely on equations to study waves. This attitude hides the fact that we are dealing with a rather complex and surprising phenomenon. The main conclusion is that spherical standing waves are capable of interaction.

An electrostatic field of force does not contain any electron or positron. Except for its effects, it is quite difficult to detect as a place containing significant amounts of energy. It may be considered as matter according to the famous m c squared equation, especially when electrons and positron come very close together. Then the field of force progressively transforms into a gluonic field, whose energy is much greater than that of an isolated electron. I strongly believe (but it is still to be demonstrated!) that this system, which contains an electron, a positron and a gluonic field of force, should be a quark. Three quarks placed crosswise, one being different in structure, should (possibly!) produce a neutron.

From a mechanical point of view, one may consider that the field of force is located exactly at the center of inertia, which is in the middle of the axis joining the electrons or the positrons. The mass of all electrons being the same, it becomes clear that its force should apply equally on both electrons, especially if the center of inertia and the observer are postulated to be stationary.

The Double Action Principle.

Any attraction or repulsion effect is a consequence of the radiation pressure, which is applied equally in opposite directions by the field of force. This suggests Newton's action and reaction law, but in this case the center of inertia does not move. If it were moving, action and reaction would not be equal any more because the Doppler effect would produce waves whose wavelength differs forward and backward. The result is unequal active and reactive forces incoming from active and reactive mass, which is present inside the field of force.

If the mass of two material bodies is not the same, the acceleration is faster for the smaller body. As a result, the center of inertia remains stationary. However, in the case of gravity between the moon and the earth, for example, the fields of force are repulsive fields which are placed beyond each of them. The moon seems attracted, but it is actually pushed towards the earth. A "virtual" attractive field seems to be placed exactly in the middle, not at the center of inertia. The result is a simultaneous action which neutralizes a possible torque effect. Many authors had noted that gravity should be transmitted instantaneously (not at the speed of light) in order to avoid such a torque effect.

I - Newton's first law: the Inertia Principle.

The frame of reference of an isolated material body is obviously the one where it seems stationary. One could hardly think that its


frame of reference is the one where it seems to move at a constant speed and along a straight line. This is what Newton seems to admit, though. If it seems to move, the frame of reference is rather that of an observer whose speed is not the same. Such an idea could be acceptable according to Galileo's Relativity Principle, but it is now totally obsolete because of the Lorentz transformations. Today, the only acceptable frame of reference is Cartesian, not Galilean, and it must be postulated to be stationary.

This preferred, if not unique Cartesian frame of reference should theoretically be at rest as compared to the aether. However, Lorentz and Poincare also discovered that such a reference is unverifiable. The only remaining compromise is to simply postulate that a given frame of reference is stationary. This choice is indeed possible according to Relativity. If a material body is moving (or if it seems to be moving) inside this frame of reference, one must consider that it is undergoing the Lorentz Transformations, more exactly the Doppler effect. Lorentz's equations or my Time Scanner can finally show how it should behave.

In brief, one cannot consider a moving frame of reference unless everything inside it is undergoing the Lorentz transformations. The only easy way to observe the moving equivalent under the Lorentz transformations is to submit it to my Time Scanner. For example, a rotating gear should look like this:

The center of the gear on the left hand side is stationary but the external part is rotating at 86.6% of the speed of light.

The equivalent gear shown on the right was accelerated by the Time Scanner to 86.6% of the speed of light.

Because matter cannot reach the speed of light, the upper part moves to the right at 0.9897 c only.

Please note that all moving parts are undergoing a contraction according to Lorentz's shrinking factor.

The center of inertia appears to be the best place for establishing the frame of reference. It is especially useful in the presence of multiple bodies undergoing interaction because it never moves. For instance, the center of inertia of the solar system remains at rest and the sun rather rotates around it because it is attracted mainly by Jupiter and Saturn, especially when they come close together. This is a good basis for the next page on Fields of Force Dynamics.

That is why Newton's first law needs to be worded differently, possibly this way:

Newton's First Law revisited.

This preferred frame of reference is also that of the observer, who is postulated to be stationary as well.

It should be pointed out that Newton admitted that the Inertia Principle was Galileo's discovery.

Formerly:

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

II - Newton's second law: Force and Acceleration.

The well-known formula: f = m*a should apparently become inaccurate at very high speed because of the Doppler effect, which causes the mass to progressively build up according to the gamma factor. However, acceleration decreases while mass increases and surprisingly, the original formula seems to remain correct. An elaborated analysis using active and reactive mass should confirm this. The

The center of inertia is postulated to remain stationary in its frame of reference.


notion of acceleration will also need to be revisited.

Once again, the observer must be postulated to be stationary in order to avoid contradictory results. As Newton pointed out, one must take the composition of forces (which behave according to Pythagoras' theorem) into account. But in addition, because Newton was unaware that matter inertia, energy and mass are variable, I propose that his second law on force and acceleration should be upgraded as follows:

Newton's Second Law revisited.

At high speed, the Doppler effect causes matter mass to increase proportionally to the gamma factor.

That is why the body accelerates less and less rapidly if the applied force is constant.

Formerly:

"The acceleration of an object is proportional to the force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass."

III - Newton's third law: the stationary field of force generates two equal and opposite actions.

The law of conservation of mass and energy always holds true. As seen from a stationary frame of reference which is not that of the center of inertia, the total amount of mass T shown below never changes: T = 3 kg. However, another observer placed in the frame of reference of the other ball would obtain the reversed contradictory version.

The frame of reference is that of the ball on the right hand side before the collision.

The force may be applied by any field of force, for example a magnetic field.

Delta stands for mass which is temporarily stored into the field of force while the force is applied.

It was found around 1900 that the light could exert a radiation pressure on a material body and that the pressure is stronger if the light is reflected. This suggests that there is an action and reaction effect and that a laser should be pushed backward while it is emitting a light beam, much the same way a cannon is. But obviously, the light could not push a material body faster than the speed of light. The field of force could not emit a radiation beam towards the billiards ball either. That is why energy or kinetic energy, whose amount is given by the m c squared formula, is linked to the speed of light "c".

In the animated gif shown above, a problem arises because the frame of reference is not that of the center of inertia. The asymmetry introduces a more complex calculus whose results are not consistent as seen from any other frame of reference. Fortunately, if the frame of reference is postulated to remain at the center of inertia, the results become symmetric and they are less likely to appear different anywhere else. The "double action" collision below is definitely more acceptable.

The frame of reference is that of the center of inertia.

Now, the collision phenomenon is much easier to understand and to deal with.

The transposition is not equivalent here because the total mass M is 4 kg instead of 3. If just one ball was considered to be moving, its speed should be 0.9428 c and its mass, 3 kg. From an absolute point of view, if the speed is unequal, action and reaction are also unequal because of the Doppler effect. However, this point of view must be ruled out because of Relativity. The only remaining option (the only interesting one, actually) is to consider that the field of force is stationary and that it radiates exactly the same amount of energy on both sides. Thus, there is no specific action or reaction any more. One must rather consider that the field of force exerts exactly the same force in two opposite directions, that is on the two billiard balls located on each side of the center of inertia. This might be called the "Double Action Principle".

Considering that its mass increases according to Lorentz's gamma factor as seen from a frame of reference which is postulated to be stationary, the acceleration of a material body is proportional to

the force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass.


Newton's Third Law revisited.

Double Action replaces Action and Reaction.

This phenomenon is developed in the next page on the fields of force dynamics.

Formerly:

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In the presence of multiple bodies, the center of inertia of the whole system is still the best place for establishing the frame of reference from where the observer will have a better view. The composition of a large number of fields of force will have to be considered. Fortunately, most of the time, it remains possible to obtain fairly good results using the Double Action Principle. But when relativistic speeds must be taken into account, the forces become unequal. Active and reactive forces appear. As seen from the center of inertia, they are proportional to the forward and backward Doppler effect. Thus, a fairly accurate calculus for the solar system using the Double Action Principle appears feasible, but a highly accurate calculus using active and reactive forces would be much more complicated to perform.

The Fields of Force Dynamics.

The dynamics of matter is all about wave dynamics. However, for practical reasons, one should rather name it the fields of force dynamics. The important point is that the Lorentz transformations and Relativity must be taken into account in order to upgrade Newton's laws on motion.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is very annoying to deal with because it doesn't appear logical. Especially, it always yields two different and reciprocal results. For example, two observers whose speed is not the same always see "the other one" undergoing a contraction. One should admit that this reciprocity is not a "paradox". Let's face it, it is purely a contradiction which indicates that one of them at least (and more likely both of them) is wrong because he is fooled by the Doppler effect.

The preferred frame of reference.

The good news is that the composite field of force responsible for interactions between two (or many) material bodies is located at the center of inertia, which may most of the time be postulated to be stationary. The point is that it does not move whatever the result of the interaction. This is the perfect place to establish a preferred frame of reference where an observer will not be fooled by the Doppler effect. From this point of view, the situation is no longer symmetrical because it is unique. All other observers should admit that this place is indeed a reliable one to establish the Cartesian axes. They have no choice anyway: it is the unavoidable condition under which Newton's laws on motion hold true.

On the one hand, the observer placed at the center of inertia is impartial because he doesn't have any reason to prefer any other situation. His frame of reference is the best one, it is unique, and as seen from this place there is no Relativity any more. His only remaining task is to establish the amount of transformation of all other moving bodies according to Lorentz's equations. My Time Scanner can also perform this operation.

On the other hand, this impartial observer certainly doesn't see what is truly going on. Lorentz and Poincare discovered that the only one and absolute situation will remain unknown forever.

This indicates that, most certainly, action and reaction are unequal from an absolute point of view. They are proportional to action and reaction forces as a result of the Doppler effect. Moreover, they are not simultaneous. Newton's laws on motion being revisited, let's examine why and how causes produce effects.

A new Causality Principle.

It is true that every effect has a cause. But today, it becomes obvious that this effect is a motion and that the cause which produced this motion was a wave traveling through the aether at the speed of light. Motion appears to be the result of a modification of forward and backward matter wavelength according to the Doppler effect. Lorentz discovered that there is no wavelength modification transversally: y'=y; z'=z. This singularity (the regular Doppler effect introduces a wavelength contraction transversally) supposes that the electron frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor.

It turns out that the process is strongly dependant on the speed of light, which introduces a delay between a cause and its effect.

The field of force which is postulated to be located at the center of inertia of two material bodies exerts an equal and opposite action on both of them in such a way that it remains

stationary.


The important point is that effects transform into new causes, which then produce new effects. This endless chain reaction is the basis of matter mechanics and we have shown that, quite surprisingly, a mechanical wave propagates much the same way.

So, in that order, we have a motion, a stronger compressed emitted wave because of the Doppler effect, a field of force when this wave encounters another one incoming from another material body, a radiation pressure generated by the field of force towards this body, and a motion again. As seen at the electron scale, the splendor of our universe is nothing but the sum of motions generating more motions.

Thus, a new Causality Principle might be worded as follows:

A new Causality Principle.

Because causes are always different, it appears unlikely to be possible that the "the same causes always produce the same effects". Such a statement introduces a serious problem about determinism. The future might be the inexorable sum of all of today's causes, but this is unverifiable.

Around 1900, during the period preceding the discovery of Relativity, scientists were divided. They could not reach a consensus about a mechanist or a probabilistic approach. The probabilistic choice could rule out the hard to conceive determinism. Statistics prove to be quite logic, and most randomly distributed events sometimes end up with surprising coincidences. But a mechanism leading to liberty appears improbable. If Newton's laws are unavoidable, the mechanistic choice is the only logic one.

Our situation could be that of passengers traveling in a train wagon. Considering that the railroad is already in place and that it leads to some unknown destination, which is however already well established, we can merely observe the landscape and wait until our fate is accomplished. However, most people categorically reject this philosophy.

To be honest, the ultimate question should rather be: what was the Cause of the aether?

The speed of light is constant and decisive.

Any radiation is transmitted through the aether at the speed of light. Because energy decreases according to the square of the distance law, the same radiation cannot produce the same effect everywhere simultaneously and with the same force.

In addition, because of the Lorentz transformations, a moving phenomenon is (or seems) severely distorted. Because of the Doppler effect, the waves traveling forward are slower and the mechanical result is a local time, which is given by Lorentz's t' second equation. In addition, the speed of light traveling in a moving system is slower, even from an absolute point of view, because the light path is longer, especially axially. This was discovered by Michelson. Thus, forces are also distorted proportionally and matter mechanics as well. Surely, Lorentzian Relativity appears much more reasonable today, and it strongly suggests that matter is made of waves.

It becomes clear that Newton's laws on motion are strongly related to the speed of light in a way that Newton never suspected. The famous m*c squared equation must definitely be integrated to Newton's mechanics, considering that the speed of light "c" is constant with respect to the aether.

Surely, Einstein's postulate stating that the speed of light is the same in all Galilean frames of reference is wrong.

Gravity does not bend space.

A gravitational field of force seems present between two material bodies. It apparently attracts them from an arbitrary center of inertia. But actually, gravity is caused by at least four fields of force, whose component finally pushes them towards each other.

Let's be clear: gravity is not linked to Relativity. Elaborating a complex "General Relativity" in order to just explain gravity was a mistake. Gravity is much more simply explainable thanks to the fields of force dynamics. This method proposes the center of inertia as a preferred frame of reference. The interesting point is that it allows one to consider that this place is no longer submitted to Relativistic effects. What's more, Newton's formula on gravity can be recovered without any modification, on condition that any moving material body is postulated to be submitted to the Lorentz Transformation according to its speed as it is seen from this frame of reference. This includes the gain in mass, which is responsible for kinetic energy.

Frankly, gravity cannot bend space. This is ridiculous.

Newton's glorious work is now accurate for Eternity.

The important point to remember is that Newton was unaware that matter waves are undergoing the Doppler effect, more exactly

Any effect has a cause, and this effect produces new causes which are transmitted by waves at the speed of light.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| You are here | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

the Lorentz Transformations. Because the goal is to upgrade Newton's mechanics, the obvious conclusion to draw is that one must now take the Lorentz transformations into account. This should fix the problem forever.

Because it is all about integrating the Doppler effect to Newton's discoveries, the page on active and reactive mass appears of the utmost importance. Lorentz predicted that in a moving system, any periodic phenomenon such a an emitter frequency should slow down. For example, assuming that beta is 0.866, the electron frequency would be reduced to only 50% of its original frequency:

F ' = g F = 0.5 F

The basic frequency being slower, the forward absolute wavelength still contracts and the force applied forward becomes stronger. The wave energy (hence matter mass) being proportional to the frequency, it also increases. Active force "a" is given by:

Fa = F ' / (1 – beta) = 0.5 / (1 – 0.866) = 3.732 F

The force exerted by waves traveling forward or backward is represented by a and r, which stand for action and reaction. Here, the force exerted forward is 3.732 times that of a stationary electron. The force exerted backward is rather given by:

Fr = F ' / (1 + beta) = 0,5 / (1 + 0.866) = 0.26795 F

It should be emphasized that, unlike the regular Doppler effect, this "relativistic" Doppler effect is perfectly symmetrical. One force is exactly the inverse (1 / x) of the other. That is why Lorentz's Relativity becomes possible.

Fa * Fr = 1

1 / Fa = F

r

1 / 3.732 = 0.26795

Kinetic energy according to the gamma factor is just a consequence of Lorentz's slower Doppler effect. Knowing this, Newton's work becomes logical, comprehensive and accurate. I am well aware that this page needs a severe revision, but its basic principles cannot be doubted any more because the wave mechanics always lead to correct predictions.

Let's face it: Einstein did not explain why and how those phenomena are possible.

Fortunately, it was not that complicated.

Gabriel LaFreniere



On the Internet since September 2002.

This page was translated from French in June 2009. Updated December 3, 2009.


FIELDS OF FORCE

The Coulomb field of force between two billiard balls make them decelerate or accelerate.

The mass gain as kinetic energy is transferred to the field from the ball on the left-hand side.

Then the field transmits the equivalent kinetic energy to the other ball, whose mass increases.

However, from the field's point of view, both balls are symmetrically bouncing on each other.

This calculus is based on Lorentz's mass gain: M = a + r according to active and reactive mass.

T is the total mass for both balls, so that the 3 – T delta mass must be temporarily allotted to the field.

Action and reaction between two billiard balls is essentially caused by electrostatic fields of force, which are responsible for the well-known Coulomb force. The repulsion effect is easily explainable by the fact that electrons only (rarely protons vs. electrons) come very close together when two pieces of matter collide.

Electrons always create fields of force.

Electrons are constantly radiating outgoing spherical waves all around. Thus, when two electrons come close together, waves meet between them and produce the very special ellipsoid standing wave pattern below.

The "biconvex" electrostatic field of force.

The wave addition produces ellipsoidal standing waves.

The amplitude is nil beyond electrons and it reaches a maximum exactly at the center.

The orthogonal central pattern as seen from electrons.

This structure is that of the diffractive lens.

On the one hand, the cross section structure is clearly that of the diffractive lens .

On the other hand, all standing waves should be amplified the same way electrons are because of a lens effect (different from the diffractive lens effect below). This field of force is amplified as well and the resulting energy according to mc^2 must be considered as

http://glafreniere.com/sa_fields.htm

additional mass. Fields of force are true matter, especially gluonic fields, whose energy is much higher than the plain electron pair which is creating it. They are some sort of "canned" kinetic energy and they are responsible for nuclear energy.

The diffractive lens.

Please observe that the cross section pattern is identical to that of the diffractive lens. Such a lens is possible because of the Huygens Principle. Each concentric obstacle stops or diffracts any wavefront whose energy is opposite in phase with respect to the focal point. Thus, all remaining Huygens' wavelets are roughly in phase on a binary basis. The main difference is its hyperbolic shape especially on both ends.

Fields of force act like a diffractive lens because waves cannot travel freely through antinodes, where the aether density is variable. This is an undisputable principle: waves need a medium whose density must be constant in order to propagate with a constant velocity. They do travel freely through nodes, where density is constant, but they are weakly but surely scattered by each antinode. Thus, the addition for so many of them is finally decisive.

Clearly, the amplified field of force should act more or less like an emitter whose structure is that of the diffractive lens. There is a converging effect. A significant part of the energy is focused towards both electrons. From another point of view, the field acts like a "diffractive mirror" capable of returning back all waves incoming from two electrons simultaneously. This explains radiation pressureand also action and reaction.

The phase rotation.

However, it is not that simple because the whole concentric node and antinode structure is moving away from the center. This produces a phase rotation, which is very regular everywhere because variable radii for concentric areas are compensated by variable velocity. Obviously, such a field alone cannot focalize energy because it is constantly rotated in phase in such a way that outgoing waves only are amplified.

But it is not the case if the pattern is periodically stopped much the same way a stroboscope can apparently immobilize any rotating unit such as a wheel or a fan.

The stroboscope effect.

The electron acts like a perfect stroboscope because all its node and antinode structure oscillates simultaneously. The electron is a finite standing wave system, but its partially standing wave area nevertheless expands through billions of wavelengths. Its influence inside the field of force is determinant.

So, when two electrons come rather close together, the wave addition clearly produces a stroboscopic effect on the field of force, at least in their respective area. Theoretically, three traveling wave trains are involved. If phases do not coincide, nodes and antinodes are weakened. They are rather strengthened when all three phases coincide.

The important point is that this process is simultaneous. The electron spin does not matter either because nodes and antinodes appear simultaneously for both spins, while they appear with a pi / 2 phase offset for positrons whatever their spin. In all cases, this partially cancels the phase rotation inside the field of force.

Finally, the amplification process produces Huygens wavelets which are mostly in phase with respect to electron or positron pairs, but the phase is opposite for an electron in the presence of a positron on a go and return trip. Then an attraction effect rather occurs as a result of stronger waves incoming from the opposite side.

The electron synchronization.

Additionally, in the presence of many electrons, the stroboscopic effect between each of them matches constantly because all electrons oscillate simultaneously. If the phase does not match exactly for a given electron, the whole oscillating structure will correct the anomaly. This synchronization phenomenon also influences the positron spin as long as it is not well secured inside a proton. It will slowly transform into an electron unless it previously reacts with the nearest electron and produce a quark.

This occurs inside and around regular atomic structures because electrons are always nearer to each other. The nucleus may rather contain many positrons where the phase synchronization is compatible because the gluonic field conveniently produces a central area where the phase in quadrature allows it. The animated diagram below clearly shows this surprising phenomenon.

The stroboscopic effect is also well visible. The diffractive lens structure is no longer regularly moving away from the center. It is rather moving by successive pulses separated by a pause. This happens because the electron partially standing waves (where outgoing waves are stronger) progressively transform into pure standing waves nearer to its center.


Two electrons very close together produce a quark with a very strong gluonic field.

Three quarks placed crosswise on the three Cartesian axes produce a neutron.

Surprisingly, the phase in the center conveniently matches the positron's.

Thus, a positron can hide in the center and produce a proton.

Also, please observe the stroboscope effect.

Matter in the whole universe contains as many positrons as electrons because most atomic structures maintain an equilibrium between them. As a matter of fact, positrons are not different from electrons except for phase, which is quadrature. Antimatter is just a relative point of view, especially because electrons or positrons are submitted to the Lorentz transformations. Obviously, their frequency should slow down when they are moving very fast. Thus fast moving matter with respect to an observer at rest is constantly transforming into antimatter, then into regular matter, and so on.

Any moving electron is constantly transforming into a positron, then into an electron of opposite spin, and so on according to four pi / 2 phase steps. This is the cause of electric fields and magnetic fields involving the Lorentz force. As seen from any unmoving matter, electrons moving inside parallel feeders produce induction and self-induction as a result of the phase rotation. Similarly, electrons moving inside a coil constantly exhibit a phase rotation which explains the magnetic effects. When they are positrons, they cannot react with unmoving electrons in the coil, firstly because their phase changes rapidly, and secondly because their path inside any conductive atomic structure is free from electrons. Otherwise, moving electrons hitting matter certainly produce strong effects such a light emission and even X-Rays for faster speed.

Thus many moving electrons behave like neutral particles inside unmoving conductive matter, but they still behave constantly like electrons with respect to each other. Because of this elasticity, they behave like a moving medium for high frequency electronic waves. This strongly suggests that their true speed inside a 300 Ohms TV feeder, for example, is certainly not 80% of the speed of light, which is the signal velocity. The electron true speed is rather slow, and they simply move to and fro in the case of standing waves.

Billions of stacked hyperbolic diffractive lenses.

Additionally, there are a lot of diffractive lenses stacked between both electrons, actually billions of them. So their additive effect should strongly focalize a lot of Huygens' wavelets.

My most recent analysis of the global effect reveals that it should be a mix between the well-known Fresnel diffraction pattern and the Airy disk. It is quite uncertain because my program for this becomes much too slow if the goal is to analyze the whole emitting, then receiving 3-D space vs. a complete phase rotation. However, using shortcuts, the computer indicates that the axial alternating higher and lower amplitude zones, which are typical of both the Airy disk and the Fresnel diffraction pattern, should be still present. From another point of view, it is a well known fact that apodization erases all traces of such patterns. But it is unlikely to be possible here because the source energy should match the Gaussian normal distribution. Clearly, it is not the case here.

The animated diagram below displays only the Fresnel diffraction pattern. Whatever the distance between two electrons, the effect should be constant because of a surprising phase shift which occurs between each higher amplitude zone.


THE AMAZING PROPERTIES OF CONCENTRIC ELLIPSES

The field of force acts like a diffractive lens.

A lambda / 2 phase shift occurs between each high-energy zone.

The result is a constant repulsion or attraction effect depending on the relative phase.

In order to work properly, the field of force must exhibit stunning properties. The goal is to justify radiation pressure, which is at the very basis of matter mechanics. The phase must obviously match for nodes and antinodes everywhere inside a huge 3-dimensional space. This suggests holography.

The ellipsoid mirror is perfect for this. The diagram below especially shows that exchanges between two electrons via many theoretical concentric ellipsoid mirrors constantly match the wavelength because all distances are always integer multiples.

All concentric (theoretical) mirrors have the same focal points A and D. Whatever their path, spherical waves emitted from A always reach D in accordance with the same phase. Actually, the node and antinode pattern is not a mirror but the amplification process produces a similar effect.

Finally, all ellipsoid layers act like mirrors and spherical waves are perfectly focalized towards the opposite electron.

The ellipse is also the basis of the Lorentz transformations.

Because the field of force is already ellipsoid, the Lorentz transformations simply modify its structure while it moves into a different one whose properties do not change. As far as I know, I am the first one to point out that the Lorentz transformations are just how the Doppler effect transforms matter, and that the ellipse is totally founded on its basic magnitudes.

The diagram below shows that Lorentz's contraction factor g and the theta angle as compared to the normalized beta velocity are related to the ellipse. Poincaré's "aberration" according to g squared, which he used in order to explain Relativity, is the radius (r) of the smaller circle of reference. The gamma factor is that of the larger one.


The famous astronomer Karl Schwarzschild found a constant K in order to make accurate squashed or elongated ellipsoid, paraboloid and even hyperboloid Cassegrain telescope mirrors, whose primary focus point (f) is half of the r or r' radius. Schwarzschild's constant is 0 for a sphere and –1 for a parabola. It is higher than 0 (positive) for squashed (oblate) ellipses and lower than –1 for hyperbolas.

Any value between 0 and –1 for K = –beta ^ 2 = g ^ 2 – 1 produces elongated (prolate) ellipses. Using Schwarzschild's formula, please note that r stands for the smaller circle of reference radius for parabolas and prolate ellipses. It rather stands for the larger circle of reference radius for oblate ellipses.

However, it turns out that Schwarzschild's constant is interconnected with the r radius. It is redundant, but one may prefer to use it anyway in order to avoid the conversion to R while working on telescope mirrors. Otherwise, the simplified sagitta formula below for the ellipse rather uses a radius R = x / 2 which is that of the ellipse's larger radius (or that of its circumscribed circle).

The sagitta according to Schwarzschild is given by:

sag = h ^ 2 / (r * (1 + sqr(1 – (h ^ 2 / r ^ 2) * (K + 1))))

For the circle: sag = R – sqr(R ^ 2 – h ^ 2) )

For the parabola: sag = h ^ 2 / 2 r

Simplified formula for the ellipse: sag = R – sqr(R 2 – (h / g) 2 ) = .2

It should be emphasized that there is no such thing as prolate or oblate ellipse. Those words are rather related to a specific portion of the ellipse, so that there is no true sagitta for the so-called oblate ellipse. The equivalent orthogonal sagitta is more exactly the

prolongation of the h (height) distance and it is given by a calculus based on the ellipse's true sagitta (h' = R – sag). However, as compared to that of a circle (see formula above) it is contracted according to g:

Pseudo-sagitta for the oblate ellipse: sag' = g * (R – sqr(R ^ 2 – (R – sag) ^ 2) ) = .2

To say it shortly, an ellipse is an ellipse. Period.

Action and reaction.

Fields of force are responsible for action and reaction because they can simultaneously focalize energy towards two electrons in two opposite directions.

Fields of force are matter. They contain energy according to E = mc^2 and they are submitted to the Lorentz transformations. So the node and antinode structure (hence all ellipses) undergo a contraction according to g and the phase wave according to Lorentz's t' equation maintains a virtual simultaneity for action and reaction. And finally, the Doppler effect is not perceptible from the field point of view because shorter waves move slower than longer ones, which rather move faster with respect to the frame of reference. Thus, the radiation pressure on both electrons is constant whatever their relative velocity or direction.

Amazingly, in spite of the Doppler effect, fields of force always act as if they were at rest. This principle is not really related to Relativity because there is only one frame of reference to consider, that of the field of force. It is rather one of the most important principles related to the New Mechanics, and it will allow us to easily upgrade Newton's laws.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | You are here. | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

For example, Newton's third law "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction" actually means that from the field's point of view, there is always opposite and equal action. It should rather be called the "Principle of Double Action" because the electrostatic field of force focuses energy equally towards both electrons whatever their true speed. Instead of a billiard ball hitting another one which is at rest, one can more easily consider that both balls are simply bouncing on each other like this:

There is no simpler way to mathematically obtain the correct results because, from an absolute point of view, action and reaction are not equal. Newton was wrong on this because he was not aware that kinetic energy is the consequence of Lorentz's mass gain. The diagram clearly shows that when both 1 kg balls (M = a + r and total mass T = 4) are temporarily stopped, the field of force contains m = 2 kg (delta = T – 2) of "canned" kinetic energy according to mc^2 which allows it to finally re-accelerate both of them in opposite direction at 86.6% of the speed of light.

It should be emphasized that the total mass T for both balls and the field of force is constantly 4 kg. So the law of conservation of energy is still valid, but it is true only as seen from the field of force. After the collision, the ball on the right hand side may be considered at rest and its mass should be 1 Kg. But the other ball would seem to move away according to Poincaré's law of velocity addition:

beta prime = (beta 1 + beta 2) / (1 + beta 1 * beta 2)

Beta 1 and beta 2 are both sin 60° = 866, so beta prime is .9897 and gamma is exactly 7. This means that, from each ball point of view, the mass for the other ball moving away at 98.97% of the speed of light is 7 kg. So the total mass is 2 * 4 = 8 kg according to beta = .866 and gamma = 2 because the frame of reference velocity has been accelerated from 0 to .866.

Clearly, the total mass and energy is dependent on the frame's velocity.

On the one hand, action and reaction are equal only if the frame is at rest. So it is much preferable to presume that it is at rest...

On the other hand, if one billiard ball is moving and the other one is at rest from the observer's point of view, the speed and mass for both of them must be firstly converted according to Poincaré's law of velocity addition. Then the calculus for the energy transfer becomes possible according to active and reactive mass. It is just a matter of active and reactive mass addition, which can be easily performed in a single operation if there is no significant deformation. For oblique collisions, active and reactive mass must be tempered according to the cosine of the angle (actually the Doppler effect).

Finally, all results must be converted once again. I admit that this procedure seems to be the hard way, but it is likely to be unavoidable in order to obtain perfect results.

Please be patient.

This page will need a lot of additional updates because fields of force are complex.

We are especially working on a new version of the Virtual Aether, which will be capable of a lens effect. So the electron amplification as well as the field of force mechanism will become verifiable. There is no doubt about this because the air itself is capable of a lens effect. I could

check this using a spherical mirror, a Foucault apparatus and a stroboscope; then standing waves become well visible. No doubt that they should also become visible using ultrasonic imaging

devices (ultrasonography).


Gabriel LaFreniere





THE FIELD OF FORCE DYNAMICS

The fields of force between two billiard balls make them decelerate or accelerate.

Their mass as kinetic energy is borrowed from the faster ball and transferred to the slower one through the field.

This is possible because standing waves undergo the Doppler effect.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

Please note that if both balls are captured and glued together in the middle of the process by the field of force, this becomes the equivalent of a spring capable of throwing them away at high speed.

This field of force contains energy and it will liberate energy if the capture mechanism is neutralized.

Fields of force.

Any oscillating system such as a pendulum may theoretically oscillate endlessly because kinetic energy is periodically transferred into a gravitational field of force, and again into kinetic energy.

Even though one can list many kinds of fields, the main principle is always the same. All fields of force are the result of the addition of waves emitted by two material bodies. This produces standing waves. Then this system is amplified by all aether waves in the vicinity and it radiates the equivalent energy toward both bodies. As seen by any unmoving observer with respect to the field of force, the radiation pressure is equal on both sides and the field pushes (yet the force may also be negative and most often neutral) both bodies equally according to the mass ratio.

This is Newton's action and reaction law, which proves to be true from a relative point of view.

Fields of force contain energy.

Actually, all laws can finally be explained using solely waves.

The important point is that fields of force contain energy. Energy was accessible through carbon vs. oxygen combustion or other chemical reactions, volcanic and solar heat, or wind. More recently, electricity could be extracted directly from light. Many other devices such as electropositive and electronegative electrodes can also produce electricity.

And finally, nuclear fusion or fission liberates very few but still huge quantities of energy which was stocked inside gluonic fields.

I am of an opinion that this avenue could lead us to a much easier and cleaner way to obtain energy. I am working alone and I am much too old to obtain positive results in a near future. So, instead of investing billions and billions in a non-productive Higg's boson, it would be advisable to spend a little money on this hypothesis because it is the only reasonable one.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_dynamics.htm

| 17 | 18 | You are here. | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere




http://glafreniere.com/sa_dynamics.htm

MAGNETIC FIELDS

Here, the electron is very near to a lambda / 4 phased proton or positron.

Note the one-way waves responsible for magnetic fields.

Two spherical wave centers produce hyperboloids.

Magnetic poles are emitters or receivers.

According to the wave mechanics, waves traveling in the same direction add constructively or destructively, but they never produce standing waves. On the contrary waves traveling in opposite direction never cancel; they always produce standing waves. If the particle position is inverted, two bipolar one-way systems (as shown above) produce more on-axis standing waves systems between them, hence a secondary magnetic field of force. On the contrary, two identical system will not produce any field of force. This explains magnetic north and south poles.

The field of force is amplified by aether waves. The resulting energy is radiated only along the axis because Huygens' wavelets are out of phase for any transverse direction in accordance with the Huygens Principle.

As a consequence, any magnetic system emitting waves toward another symmetrical system will push it because of the radiation pressure. However, two opposite poles (north vs. south or inversely) rather produce an attraction effect.

Two shifted sets of hyperboloids produce the well known magnetic lines of force.

Two concentric spherical wave systems produce interferences on hyperboloids and concentric ellipsoids. Neglecting the ellipsoids, one can then superimpose two sets of hyperboloids:

http://glafreniere.com/sa_magnetic.htm

Two or more hyperboloid sets produce a magnetic field.

Three emitters (or more) regularly spaced also produce complex magnetic lines of force.

The Lorentz force.

The animated diagram below shows the same one-way waves (traveling upwards here) created by 2 electrons and 2 protons. It also shows very special wave patterns undulating on hyperboloids:


The Lorentz force arises on the standard hyperboloid wave patterns.

Positrons or electrons moving along any orthogonal plane must constantly change direction.

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | You are here. | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

The mechanism for the Lorentz force is far more complicated then expected because the electron waves create a secondary field of force among more already existing and complex fields of force. It is not likely to be clearly explained until all other simpler magnetic phenomena are well established.

Magnetic fields appear to be a rather complex phenomena, but they can still be explained by spherical standing waves. What's more, both electrons and protons must be present and traveling properties for magnetic fields are definitely ruled out. This means that the light and radio waves cannot be made of magnetic (and electric) fields traveling at the speed of light.

Electromagnetic waves and Maxwell's equation.

It turns out that the so-called electromagnetic waves do not exist. The light and radio waves are regular traveling waves which nevertheless can induce electric and magnetic fields inside matter.

This also means that Maxwell's equations just explain how electric and magnetic fields behave around any material device such as an antenna. They cannot exist in a vacuum very far away from matter.

Gabriel LaFreniere





GRAVITY

The gravity mechanism.

There is a shade effect followed by the equivalent radiation between two material bodies.

Henri Poincare and other authors demonstrated that the wave energy should be equal everywhere.

This argument is not relevant anymore because the radiation pressure exerted by intermediate fields of force is weaker in spite of this.

The plano-convex field of force.

Outgoing spherical waves and incoming plane waves are adding constructively.

The plano-convex field of force.

Matter is made of waves and it radiates waves all around. Because the universe is filled up with enormous quantities of matter, the replenishment or amplification process transforms plane waves incoming from very distant matter all around into outgoing sphericalwaves whose energy is equal.

Additionally, waves radiated by matter create standing waves because of all incoming plane waves. The result is an unusual standing wave set which may be called a plano-convex field of force.

The biconvex field of force.

Between two material bodies, however, waves are spherical on both sides. The result is a biconvex field of force.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm

The biconvex field of force.

Spherical waves incoming from both sides produce a different standing wave pattern.

For a given area, the central on-axis pattern is smaller despite the theoretically equal wave energy.

This smaller standing wave pattern radiates less energy. This causes a weaker radiation pressure.

Inertia.

Matter constantly radiates spherical waves all around which create strong but still imperceptible fields of force.

The important point is that because of this, weaker fields on any side cause motion, acceleration or deceleration.

The shade effect.

Inertia.

Galileo showed that any moving body should go on moving as long a no action or friction causes it to decelerate. He called this phenomenon "inertia" and the principle was more formally worded later as Newton's first law.

However, Newton was not aware that matter is constantly surrounded with equally distributed and powerful plano-convex fields of force. The final result remains inertia anyway because all actions cancel as long as they are equal.

The shade effect and the radiation pressure.

All forces are the result of a difference between the radiation pressure and the shade effect. The attraction effect between two material bodies may be the result of a higher radiation pressure from opposite sides. However, in the case of gravity, it is rather caused by a lower radiation pressure between them.


This attractive force is usually cancelled because the intercepted energy is radiated again towards both material bodies.

This is what Poincare and other scientists thought.

The complete gravity mechanism.

The final disequilibria.

Because matter extracts some energy from plane aether waves, there is a shade effect between two material bodies. This causes the intermediate plano-convex fields to be weaker than the external ones. This is why they are displayed as smaller arrows in the diagram below. Then the extracted energy is totally radiated again into spherical waves and two joined additional arrows are added right in the middle of the diagram.

Theoretically, the energy sum for two smaller arrows equals that of one bigger arrow and the result should still be inertia. Because of this, Henri Poincare and other authors thought that this would cancel the shade effect and that no residual force should remain.

They all concluded that waves could not explain gravity.

For example, the sun intercepts a little amount of energy from aether waves. This produces a shade effect, which is an attractive force. Then the sun radiates the exact amount of energy as spherical wavelets which create plano-convex fields all around including the intermediate shaded space, where they are weaker because of the weaker plane waves. The same radiated waves also create additional biconvex fields of force because they encounter opposite spherical waves. Such fields are truly weaker for a given quantity of energy and they cannot cancel exactly the attractive force. It turns out that inside the intermediate shaded space, the sum of both plano-convex and biconvex gravitational fields of force cannot achieve equilibrium any more.

The important point is that biconvex fields of force are weaker than plano-convex ones. Even though the wave energy involved is the same, the radiation pressure is not.

It should be emphasized that the difference is very small. Gravity is not the "fundamental force of the Universe". It is only a residual force, quite insignificant as compared to the sum of transferred energy from incoming to outgoing waves by one kilogram of matter during one second, which is far greater then Einstein's mc squared.

NEWTON WAS RIGHT

Isaac Newton showed that the gravity force F acts according to a constant G, the mass M of two material entities, and according to the square of the distance L as given by:

F = G M1 M

2 / L 2

This is brilliant, albeit Newton never explained the gravity mechanism. He wrote :

"Hypotheses non fingo".

(I do not to put forth assumptions).

As a matter of fact, gravity cannot work exactly as Newton predicted. There are many reasons :

� Stars and planets are really big and the distance L becomes inaccurate for short distances.

� Their surface density is lower.

� Most of them are spinning and this should produce a Doppler torque effect.

� Mercury's elliptic orbit causes a variable Doppler effect.

� Any high speed difference, for example inside supernovae, also produces a Doppler effect.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | You are here. | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

� The solar wind exerts a pressure whose effects may become noticeable after a century.

� The light emitted by the sun also exerts a very faint but still existing one-way radiation pressure.

� Jupiter and Saturn in conjunction severely modify the center of inertia of the solar system.

� Gravity acts and reacts at the speed of light.

� Gravity is not fully additive. It is weaker behind a second planet (e.g. during an eclipse).

The list is not exhaustive. Many more phenomena appear rather strange and need to be more carefully explained. However, there is no need to calculating gravity in a totally new way. Newton's equation works to a first approximation, and then one must make some adjustments for special cases if needed.

The light is not affected by gravity. However, electrons are capable of regenerating some new light, for example inside air, water or optical glass. So one can explain similar deviations by the presence of particles, especially close to the Sun or stars. Because of the variable solar wind, this deviation should not be constant, albeit the particle speed may compensate for variable density. This was demonstrated by the Fizeau experiment. A gaseous cloud around or inside a galaxy may also produce a lens effect. And finally, a black hole cannot emit any light simply because its plasma cannot. It is a well known fact that matter inside a quasar or pulsar is highly compressed into a very dense plasma. Such matter surely cannot emit normal light because of its severely modified structure, albeit external gaseous rings or layers still can.

There is no General Relativity because gravity rarely involves "relativistic" speed. Gravity is just a regular force, quite similar to all other forces. Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". It is geometrically impossible. This hypothesis is totally absurd, actually an insult to our intelligence. What's more, it does not mechanically explain anything.

Frankly, did you really believe that?

It is much better to simply admit Newton's law.

Gabriel LaFreniere



On the Internet since September 2002. Last update January 26, 2010.


THE LIGHT

The electron on the right hand side is rotating around a circle whose radius is only a quarter of a wavelength.

In the presence of a proton, interferences produce undulations and powerful transverse pulsations.

This is how electrons emit polarized light. Photons do not exist. The light is solely made out of waves.

LET THERE BE LIGHT

Electrons are made of spherical standing waves and they constantly emit spherical waves all around. Augustin Fresnel thought that those waves should vibrate transversally in order to justify polarization. But it turns out that they are regular longitudinal traveling waves. Although they are responsible for all forces, they do not produce any light most of the time because electrons must move to and fro or in a circular motion in order to produce undulations as show above. Then the light frequency is that of the undulations: it is a secondary frequency.

Because matter is made of waves, we can now shed new light on this matter, if you'll pardon the pun. Clearly, Augustin Fresnel was wrong: polarization does not depend on transverse vibrations. It comes from the fact that there are two types of electrons and that they are capable of oscillating like a pendulum in a straight line or in a circular trajectory. Then they radiate waves whose phases undulate transversally the way the above animated diagram suggests.

This was also Mrs. Caroline H. Thompson's opinion:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/

The diagrams below show that the electron together with the proton inside an atom always produce ellipsoid and hyperboloid patterns whatever their spin.

Since electrons behave as light receptors, and because their spin is opposite, they oscillate in an opposite direction. This is a result of the radiation pressure, whose effect depends on the spin. For example +1/2 electrons may all be pushed on the black areas shown on the right, while -1/2 electrons will prefer the white ones. Finally, all those receiving electrons oscillate like a pendulum or in a circular motion on the same lower frequency.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_light.htm

The wave addition produces concentric ellipsoids and hyperboloids where phases alternate.

Those hyperboloids are especially visible on this animation:

This is a simplification: actually, there are billions of superimposed hyperboloids very close together.

Electrons constantly radiate such waves, but most often this does not produce any light.

All hyperboloid zones are remaining stable if electrons do not move.

The primary frequency is constant but the light secondary frequency is that of undulations.

The undulation length is much longer; it was shortened above in order to make them visible.

Electrons can also move in a circular trajectory on the cross section plane.

Electrons must oscillate in a straight line (polarized light) or in a circular trajectory (no polarization) in order to produce light. This causes those hyperboloid zones to undulate like this:


Then one obtains polarization rotation.

Pulses from two electrons oscillating along the axis.

From one electron to another, there is a slight delay which explains refraction.

Color dispersion can be explained by more complex, multi-level crystalline structures.

Hyperboloids, or nearly-cylindrical zones where electrons can rotate.

Such a rotation produces visible light, which is not polarized most of the time.

Transparency.

Inside air, water, or glass, the light waves constantly disturb electrons which emit some new light whose phase is opposite. The original waves simply go through any object but their action is cancelled. The light seems to go through any transparent material, but one must realize that the exiting light is new.

A substance is transparent because it has a perfectly homogeneous structure. For instance, a crystal is made of regularly spaced atoms. All electrons inside it will react to any incident light wave and produce a new wave according to Huygens' Principle.

Because there are two sorts of electrons whose spin (phase) is opposite, one half is slightly pushed by the incident wave while the other half is rather attracted. All of them react like a genuine wave medium. The electronic wave is transmitted all the way towards the other surface, where surface electrons finally emit some new light. So there is no true light inside air, water or glass, albeit the electromagnetic effects are still present.

The diagram below shows that only a 1/4 wavelength displacement along the axis nevertheless produces a stunning and powerful set of pulses:

Most often, the visible light is emitted by electrons inside an atom in accordance with their atomic layer. We already know that they are placed on several well-defined atomic shells. However, they may not emit some light only when they move from one shell to another. This can also occur, but their position inside a given shell can be disturbed without expelling them from it.

The important point is that electrons are locked inside an area where they can slightly oscillate.

The diagram below shows that the quarks inside protons must radiate many interleaved hyperboloid zones, where the energy is weaker. Those zones can capture an electron.

Moreover, the proton radiates several parallel hyperboloid zones. Their addition produces true hyperbolas on the junction points. Finally, it becomes obvious that the constant and periodic spectral lines, especially the Balmer series, are linked to those junction points.


Hyperbolic interferences between two gluonic beams, from two orthogonal points of view.

Any of those hyperbolas can capture one electron in accordance with constant periodic distances.

This is the well known Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern, which is especially present in the laser beam.

The proton is not a laser, but similar zero-energy zones should be present on privileged axes.

Each of those "black holes" are capable of capturing one electron, but the energy level differs.

The electron ability to oscillate inside one of those zones depends on the zone position.

Finally, the light frequency is linked to the "black hole" energy level.

The hydrogen spectral lines (the Balmer series).

The link with the periodic atomic shells and the Balmer series becomes obvious:


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | You are here. | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Thus, and although difficult to believe at first :

1. The light waves do not vibrate transversely.

2. The light is made of composite waves pulsated on a secondary, lower frequency.

3. Photons do not exist.

I have been studying light all my life and I never encountered a single situation where photons were evident. The light clearly behaves like waves do. The quantum effects are the result of the electron behavior while emitting or receiving light. This occurs because the threshold for expelling them out of their normal position in one of the "black holes" shown above is constant.

Electrons do not rotate around the atomic nucleus. This hypothesis was emitted by Ernest Rutherford, who experimented with fast positive helium nucleus hitting thin material such as gold foil. It should be emphasized that this experiment did not indicate that electrons are really rotating this way. I am very surprised that all the scientific world immediately accepted this as a true fact. As a matter of fact, such a rotation was never detected experimentally. It is even unlikely to be possible because Gilbert Newton Lewis (1875-1946), a famous American chemist, showed that each element can be seen as a cube with a given number of electrons on its vertices, up to 8. This hypothesis is much more acceptable because it is based on experiments.

In addition, the Compton effect can be explained by light crossing gluonic fields, which are plane standing waves created between two electrons. Other effects may also suggest particles, but waves can always explain them too. Finally, there is no evidence of photons, albeit the presence of a quantum of energy according to Plank's constant is still obvious.

Let's be clear: photons do not exist.

Gabriel LaFreniere





CHEMISTRY

The water molecule.

THE SHADE CONES

The shade cones are zones where the nucleus radiation is weaker.

These zones can capture an electron.

The nucleus (electron/positron) radiation pattern is similar to that of two antennas fed in quadrature.

There is no on-axis radiation on the right.

However, the nucleus electron/positron system is made of standing waves.

Surprisingly, a convergent radiation replaces the zero radiation on the right:

http://glafreniere.com/sa_chemistry.htm

Two standing waves sets oscillating at quadrature generate inward waves, hence an attraction effect.

A polarization occurs if both spins are not present, explaining magnetic fields: north and south poles.

Any unmatched electron generates a magnetic field because it is coupled with a proton's positron.

This magnetic field is cancelled if the electron from the opposite spin is present on the opposite side.

Ionic binding: chlorine (left) borrows a electron from the sodium atom, which becomes positive.

The 8-electron external atomic layer is complete on both sides; so the "shade cones" are not involved.

This phenomenon occurs only because of the Coulomb force.

However, the Van der Waals forces may reinforce this binding, producing a salt crystal.

Simple binding.

One electron only can bind two atoms; it must be captured by two shade cones simultaneously.

However, a covalent 2-electron binding involving four shade cones (see below) is stronger.

COVALENT BINDING


Covalent binding: two atoms containing two unpaired electron (no opposite spin) can share them.

Two binding angles are possible whether the second electron is on the side or on the diagonal.

This 2-pivot structure may induce a hinge effect.

This indicates that diagonal unpaired electrons may more easily produce more dense molecules.

Carbon monoxide.

The oxygen atom (left) is saturated, but two unused shade cones on the right can still bind more atoms.

For example, one more oxygen atom will create CO2, two hydrogen atoms, formaldehyde, etc.

ANY MOLECULE USES CUBICAL GEOMETRY


The water molecule.

The hydrogen atom is an exception in chemistry: its electron is not necessarily captured inside a shade cone.

In any atom, the two internal electrons are located on opposite sides of the nucleus inside magnetic fields.

You are here. | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | You are here. | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere





THE WAVE THEORY

Explaining Matter and Relativity.

Planes simulating waves traveling in a moving frame of reference.

Transverse AB'A' round trip absolute distance and time according to the gamma factor: 1 / (1 – � 2 ) (1 / 2)

Longitudinal AC'A' round trip absolute distance and time according to the gamma factor squared: 1 / (1 – � 2 )

A wave theory for matter and all forces.

Aether exists. Matter is made of spherical standing waves. All forces work using waves.

Because any wave exerts a radiation pressure, the result is motion. This motion is energy. Because this energy as motion surely involves the Doppler effect, one should understand what is going on while a standing wave structure moves through aether. This leads to the Lorentz transformations.

This means that standing waves inside matter must obey the Lorentz transformations. So matter itself must contract on its displacement axis. It must also slow down its evolution speed.

Surprisingly, this leads to Relativity. Lorentz's Relativity.

The Postulates.

Most of the wave theory postulates were listed in my first book La Théorie de l'Absolu ( The theory of Absolute) in may 2000. Here is the most recent version :


The electron is nothing but a spherical standing wave system. Its waves are submitted to the Doppler effect while it is moving. Such a moving electron will be shown a little later. Here, waves are concentric while the electron is at rest :

http://glafreniere.com/sa_wavetheory.htm

The electron at rest.

The electron's amplitude diagram.

Lorentz was right.

The Lorentz transformations were found by both Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, who were very good friends. They worked on Woldemar Voigt's transformations for almost ten years, using Maxwell's equations, and they finally found the correct value in 1904.

Einstein made a mistake using the Lorentz transformations in order to build up his version of Relativity. He did not admit that aether was a must. He spoke about "space contraction" and "time dilation". Definitely, this was a very weird and inane idea.

Lorentz spoke about aether, matter contraction and clocks slowing down instead. I strongly believe that he was right. By May 2000 I wrote a French book about "The theory of Absolute". I explained that the aether exists and that matter was made of standing waves. I also showed that Hendrik Lorentz explained Relativity far better than Albert Einstein did. However, nobody believed him because he could not explain why matter should transform this way.

Then I tried to understand what was wrong with Lorentz's formulas. I noticed that speed must be evaluated using space and time units. The point is that the Lorentz equations are already using space x and time t units, plus speed units and so space and time again. Clearly, any equation using such redundant values could not work properly. There should be something wrong about speed.

The speed of light.

Lorentz's equations actually induce a wrong interpretation of Relativity because the speed of light is just "c" for both frames of reference, while space and time magnitudes are not the same. There is no c' speed. It is not possible to know for sure whether the speed of light is to be converted into x' and t' measures instead of x and t. In addition, x' and t' stand for distances and time in the frame of reference which is stationary. Using x and t for the stationary one would be more logical.

Because of this uncertainty, it is not possible to prefer the frame of reference which is stationary any more. Both frames are apparently equivalent. This page will show that one must use a stationary Cartesian frame of reference instead in order to respect Lorentz's ideas.

However, the new set of equations will only show what will happen inside a moving system. Then it will be much more difficult to predict what a moving observer will see. As far as I know, nobody made this calculation correctly. Poincaré noticed that such an observer could not know whether he was moving or not, and he first spoke about Relativity in 1904.

But Lorentz was still sure about the aether. Fortunately, many people rediscover today this "new" Lorentzian Relativity.


Because matter is made of waves, one can today see that any motion should be the result of a series of longitudinal round trips or transverse zigzag displacements, whose speed is always that of the light.

Moreover Lorentz's equations indicate x values for space and t values for time. But they also indicate v and c values. Because any speed is the result of both x and t values, such values for speed appear to be redundant. One can simply remove them from Lorentz equations. And because it is not necessary to show a reciprocity, the new set of equations will be very simple:

Energy.

From a mechanical point of view, matter works using waves whose speed is constant. The radiation pressure is a force inducing motion, and motion is energy. This happens because of the Doppler effect. Compressed waves contain more energy, in a way very similar to a "subsonic boom".

More energy inside matter means new mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation :

E = mc 2

It must be pointed out that Newton's equation (v is for velocity) for kinetic energy is :

E = mv 2 / 2

However, this equation only shows effective kinetic energy. For slow speeds, the total energy involved is doubled. One can easily understand that a billiard ball can push another one, but it is also slowed down during the process. This deceleration obviously needs as much energy as is needed for accelerating the other ball. So the total energy involved during the process is given by:

E = mv 2

On the other hand, Lorentz showed that the matter mass increases while it approaches the speed of light. The gamma factor indicates the gain value :

� = 1 / (1 – � 2 ) 1 / 2 with � = v / c

For example 2 times more while ��= .866 c, or 7 times more while ��= .99 c.

The net mass gain m' is worth 7071 – 1 = 7070 times while ��= .99999999 c. This additional mass is pure condensed kinetic energy. It represents almost all of its energy for speeds very near to c.

For such a high speed there is no need to spill half of Newton's kinetic energy any more, in order to stop a future 1 kilogram billiard ball when it is increased to 7071 kilograms. So the equation for kinetic energy as a mass gain m' surely is given by:

E = m'c 2

Let's prove it. The energy "E" must be measured in joules, the mass "m" in kilograms and the speed "v" or "c" in meters per second. Note that "c squared" means (1000 * 300000 km/s) ^ 2, about 9 * 10 ^ 16. Suppose a one kilogram meteorite is moving toward the Earth at .01 c (1860 miles or 3000 km per second). It contains .00005 kilogram as m' kinetic energy :

� = .01 m = 1

� = 1 / (1 – � 2 ) 1 / 2 = 1.00005

m' = � m – m = � – 1 = .00005

E = m'c 2

E = .00005 * 9 * 10 16 joules

E = 4.5 * 10 12 joules.

This should produce a gigantic explosion. Now, according to Newton, the v squared speed is worth (.01 * 1000 * 300,000) ^ 2, about 9 * 10 ^ 12 and the mass m is not significantly increased (1.00005). It still is about one kilogram :

E = mv 2 / 2

E = 1 * 9 * 10 12 / 2

x ' = x cos � + t sin �

t ' = t sin ��– x sin �


E = 4.5 * 10 12 joules.

This is consistent with Einstein's equation, at least while the mass increase is not significant. Otherwise the mc squared equation should prevail.

For example, one could suppose a .866 c speed. Then the gamma factor is 2. Moving at .866 c, a 2 kilogram meteorite can theoretically push a standing 1 kilogram one until it reaches .866 c. Note that the latter will then equal 2 kilograms and the first, only one, in accordance with the law of conservation of mass and energy.

So only 25% of kinetic energy instead of 50% will be spilled in order to stop the moving meteorite. Newton was not aware of this. His mv ^ 2 / 2 equation becomes gradually mv ^ 2 / 1 until it reaches almost the speed of light. Then his equation transforms to E = mc ^ 2 :

E = m v 2 / (1 + 1 / �)

Energy can be seen as kinetic or mass energy as well. There is no difference. Kinetic energy is simply the additional m' mass.

Kinetic means speed, and it turns out that Einstein's equation also shows that something inside matter always moves at the speed of light. This "something" must be waves. This equation shows that there is only one basic speed. The speed of light "c".

This new approach will lead us to a new set of equations for the Lorentz transformations, using wavelength instead of space, and wave phase instead of time.

Space, Motion and Speed.

This demonstration about Einstein's equation may look trivial. However, in my judgment, it is of the utmost importance. We know very well that matter behaves according to Einstein's equation. But the goal is to find out why matter behaves like this.

Motion was never correctly understood. Obviously Galileo was wrong. Minkowski's space-time concept is absurd. But Euclid's postulates and Descartes' aether and frame of reference system (at rest inside aether) still are true. One must now complete their space system and add motion to it.

Active and reactive masses.

Considering Einstein's equation, a new Wave Theory postulate should be that there is only one basic speed. The aether wave's speed. Clearly, there must be something inside matter which is always moving at this speed. We know that a particle cannot reach the speed of light. But the light can. This very strongly indicates a wave nature for matter. If so, it should also have a wave structure.

Waves need a medium. The Wave Theory postulates that aether exists. It also postulates that matter is made of spherical standing waves. One good reason for this is that such waves obey the Lorentz transformations.

Another reason is that the mass increase can be demonstrated using the Doppler effect. It works exactly the way a subsonic boom

does. Such a phenomenon can easily be predicted using the Doppler effect formulas : 1 – � and 1 + �. Here is a diagram showing it in a spectacular way:

Action and reaction.

Suppose a one kilogram billiard ball at rest. While moving at .866 c speed, the beta � value is worth .866 and the gamma ��factor is 2. This means that the ball will be increased to 2 kilograms.

A standing wave system at rest is radiating half of its energy forward (active mass a on the positive side) and the other half backward (reactive mass r on the negative side) on a given x axis.

According to Lorentz, for such a high speed, one must first consider that clocks will run two times slower. The system frequency will also be two times lower, and because energy is proportional to frequency, it will be two times less. Here, 2 is for both halves, and gamma is for energy loss :

a = m / 2 � r = m / 2 �


The electron mass/energy increases in accordance with the Doppler effect.

Moreover the Doppler effect is 1 / (1 – �) forward and 1 / (1 + �) backward :

a = m / 2 � (1 – �) r = m / 2 � (1 +��)

a = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 – .866) r = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 + .866)

Active mass a = 1.866 kg Reactive mass r = .134 kg

a + r = 2 kg

��m = 2 kg

��m = a + r

So the mass gain clearly involves the Doppler effect. Please note here that Mr. Milo Wolff also found that the mass increases according to the Doppler effect, which also causes de Broglie's wave.

This mass increase can be predicted using the Lorentz transformations. No surprise there : the Lorentz transformations actually are the result of the Doppler effect.

But it can also be predicted using the Doppler effect and a new motion postulate founded on the fact that the time needed for any wave round trip between two points, hence its cycle, will be two times longer inside such a moving wave structure.

Here is how a moving electron behaves:

A new law of action and reaction.

From a mechanical point of view, those active and reactive masses generate active and reactive forces. They clearly indicate that Newton's famous third law is wrong :

" Any action has an equal and opposite reaction ".

Because of the mass increase, the inequality has been demonstrated for a long time. Moreover, the Doppler effect is sinusoidal : �'

= � (1 – � cos �), and oblique forces also are. So any force should also follow this formula, using a "phi" angle which is 0° forward and reaches 180° backward :

F' = F / (1 – � cos �)

Nobody seems to have proposed the correct law. In my opinion it should be worded like this :

" Any action has a simultaneous and opposite reaction in accordance with the Doppler effect ".

The shade effect and the radiation pressure.

The page on wave mechanics shows that progressive waves must lose some of their energy while crossing standing waves. Because of the lens effect, a significant quantity of energy is transferred from aether waves to electrons. Then this energy as spherical wavelets is radiated by electrons. Because this amplification process weakens aether waves coming from any matter object, the waves become stronger in the opposite direction. This is the shade effect.

On the other hand, electrons radiate spherical wavelets containing exactly the same quantity of energy. Any aether wave exerts a radiation pressure. It can push all electrons inside matter. This pressure should compensate for the shade effect, but a very small difference can explain gravity.


When two electrons are put close together, their waves are melting together, and this produces fields such as electrostatic or gluonic. Such a system radiates most of its energy along the axis. The result is a repulsive effect along the axis and an attractive effect in any other direction. The effect will be inverted using an electron and a positron. Let us make it clear :

� An attraction effect occurs when the shade effect is stronger then the radiation pressure.

� A repulsion effect occurs when the radiation pressure is stronger then the shade effect.

Gluonic fields.

Electrons are very close together inside a quark and a proton. Inside such systems, waves from each electron and positron are strongly adding themselves. This produces "gluons" or gluonic fields. They are plane cylindrical standing wave systems which are also amplified by aether waves making their energy much more intense than that of one electron alone.

It is a well known fact that collisions between positrons and electrons produce quarks. There is no evidence that they actually annihilate.

So electrons and positrons could be indestructible. In such a case, energy released by radioactive elements or by hydrogen fusion could originate only from gluonic fields.

Matter at rest contains energy, but it is not likely to be useable.

Huygens' principle.

Any wave theory should first acknowledge that wave phenomena are composite and behave in accordance with Huygens' principle. That is, they can be predicted using thousands of "wavelets" adding or substracting themselves. Huygens only spoke about wavelets originating from a wave front. This principle supposes that the number of such wavelets is infinite.

However, Augustin Fresnel noticed that many sources would also produce similar effects even while they are not on a wave front. For example, one can show that thousands of spherical sources on a flat laser window will produce a light beam and also an Airy disk at a certain distance. But the diffraction pattern would be quite different (here L is for distance and D for diameter) for distances less than :

L = D 2 / 2.44 �

Those wavelets are sinusoidal in nature, and so sine and cosine functions must be used. As far as we know, the Huygens' principle has always proved to be true. So any other equation which does not predict the same result is simply wrong. In other words, one should play safe and always use Huygens' principle. Many animations and diagrams showed on this web site were computed this way. For example examine this astonishing animated Airy disk longitudinal view.

Computers today can process thousands of wavelets in a fraction of a second. Huygens and Fresnel could not.

Moreover, computers reveal that spherical wavelets emitted by electrons can explain gravity because their number is not infinite. There is a distance between each of them, and waves are curved, not flat. Differential calculus can show what would happen with an infinite number, but the computer shows that the result is slightly different using more or less wavelets. It can also reveal the general trend towards infinity.

Huygens principle explains gravity.

There are billions of electrons but their number still is not infinite. Because matter mechanics involves huge quantities of energy, this slight difference can explain gravity. Indeed, gravity is a very weak force, almost unperceivable between rather small objects.

This means that gravity is definitely not the "fundamental force of the Universe". It does not involve specific waves or particles. There is no need to call upon a whole "General Relativity theory" for that, albeit tremendous pressures inside massive stars can certainly cause space and time effects.

Motion is the result of composite wave displacements.

Any displacement always occurs at the speed of light, and the result is motion. Motion is essentially composite in nature. It cannot be faster then the speed of light. It must be a series of back and forth waves round trips or a sequence of sideways zigzag displacements always taking place at the speed of light "c".

The following argument has been developed hundreds of times since Lorentz. However, it must be repeated here because Albert Einstein's theory still prevails today.

Planes flying through the wind.

Showing a moving wave on this page appears to be quite a difficult enterprise. Fortunately, waves can be represented by planes flying through the wind, in a much more intuitive manner.

Suppose that the planes constant speed is 100 miles per hour and that the wind is blowing at 50 mph. This means ��= .5 and the ��

angle (arc sin ��= 30°) will be very noticeable when they are flying across the wind for an observer on the ground.

However, as seen from a Montgolfier Balloon, whose speed is the same as that of the wind, the scene would be quite different. There will be no angle any more, and the planes speed will still be 100 mph. This is the "absolute" point of view.

The following diagram shows that when there is no wind at all (or no aether wind) any round trip between A and B or between A and C (while AB = AC) is the shortest and the fastest. A race between two such planes will give a null result. Michelson's interferometer


No wind.

As seen from a Montgolfier Balloon, the planes are not tilted.

Along the wind axis.

works exactly this way. It is a wave race instead of a plane race :

The wind is blowing sideways.

However, this is no longer true at high speed (high motion would be the correct word). Let's repeat that here we suppose a beta �

= .5 c motion. The theta � angle is worth : arc sin .5 or 30°. The ABA round trip on a transverse axis becomes a zigzag AB'A' displacement. The absolute length of such a displacement is worth 1 / cos 30° or 1.1547 times the ABA original one :

Note that when they are seen from the ground, the planes must be tilted according the � = 30° angle. They seem to maintain their

original AB round trip. But actually their trip as compared to air is AB'A' and the additional distance (1 / cos � = 1.1547 instead of 1) makes it so that the time needed to perform the round trip is also 1.1547 times the original time.

The round trip along the wind axis.

The round trip distance along the displacement axis is even more complex because the motion direction must be inverted for a shorter time and distance. Such a motion follows the Doppler effect forward and backward :

Distance and time forward : 1 / (1 – �) = 2 Speed : 1 – � = .5

Distance and time backward : 1 / (1 + �) = 2 / 3 Speed : 1 + � = 1.5

This means that while the plane is flying forward the actual distance AC' will be doubled. While returning, the actual distance will be reduced to 2 / 3.

The absolute AC'A' round trip distance on the wind axis will be (2 + 2/3) / 2 = 1.3333 while it was 1.1547 across the wind. It turns out that a longitudinal round trip is longer than the equivalent transverse one. This is consistent with Albert A. Michelson's calculations for his interferometer:

Transverse distance and time : 1 / cos � = 1.1547

Longitudinal distance and time : 1 / (cos �) 2 = 1.3333

This is also consistent with Lorentz's equations. One must remember that Lorentz was trying to find out why this interferometer did


A radar signal inside a moving system at .866 c.

not reveal the aether wind. Lorentz explained that it encountered a length contraction, whose value was : cos � = .866. The x distance would be reduced to 1.3333 * .866 = 1.1547, making the absolute round trip distance exactly the same on all axes.

Lorentz believed that matter really contracts at high speed. Nobody believed him because he could not explain why. However, we know today that matter involves waves. We also know that standing waves do transform in accordance with Lorentz's equations.

Now we know why matter should behave like it does.

Clocks will slow down.

So any clock should contract. No problem there : standing waves do contract this way, and the clocks are made of standing waves. Then their pendulum absolute round trip distance would be the same on all x, y and z axes, but the time needed to perform a two-way cycle would still be 1.1547 longer on all axes.

Planes are only a comparison. Waves would behave like this too. Clearly, any periodic phenomenon or wave frequency will slow down. Matter as waves must evolve slower at high speed.

From a mechanical point of view, a pendulum must slow down while accelerating, because the absolute distance is increased. Galileo's transformation was wrong because it did not predict such a time effect. It did not predict a contraction either. On the contrary a Cartesian frame of reference still works, but it must be at rest inside aether.

The matter wave properties are well acknowledged today. The Lorentz transformations should appear merely obvious, as Euclid's geometry is. No tricky reasoning. No breathtaking equations. Pure mechanics. Pure logic.

Lorentz and the radar.

Radar pulses behave exactly in the same way as planes. Their absolute speed through aether is constant, but their relative speed is no longer the same for any moving observer.

Here, we suppose 86.6% of the light speed. Then the Lorentz contraction is worth 50% according to the gamma factor (1 / �). The following animation clearly shows that four radar pulses and their echoes must come back exactly in the same time :

1. The 5 observers will be unable to detect the contraction.

2. The time shift will cancel the signal delay forward and backward.

3. Their clocks will run slower while the signal speed will also travel two times slower.

The Doppler effect.

Any wave theory should include the Doppler effect. This phenomenon explains almost all of matter's behavior.

Although it is well known, very few people can use it correctly in order to explain the Lorentz transformations and Relativity :


The Doppler effect : �' = � (1 – � cos �)

Forward : 1 – � Backward : 1 + �

A little exercise.

Suppose that you are traveling at .866 c speed inside a space ship among those A,B,C,D and O observers.

The goal is to show that it will be impossible to detect any difference. All observers will think that they are at rest. Apparently, no contraction. No clocks slowing down. This leads to Relativity.

Actually, there is a contraction. Clocks do slow down.

Standing waves behave in accordance with Lorentz.

I show in my page on standing waves that such waves behave exactly this way. As far as I know, this was Mr. Yuri Ivanov'sdiscovery. As Mr. Ivanov pointed out, matter must behave this way too because waves are responsible for atomic and molecular binding. One will also find this in Mr. Serge Cabala's web site.

Lorentz was working on Voigt's transformations, using Maxwell's equations. He was trying to find out why Michelson's interferometer did not reveal the aether wind. As FitzGerald did, he found that matter should contract on the displacement axis. He also found that it should reduce its evolution speed.

Clearly, Lorentz was right. Unfortunately, nobody believed him because he could not explain why this should happen. He was not aware of the matter's wave properties. And he put down his transformations the wrong way because he was greatly influenced by his friend Henri Poincaré.

A Cartesian frame of reference.

Galileo's Relativity Principle is wrong. It cannot work because aether exists. One simply cannot transfer data from a frame at rest to a moving frame. The frame should stay at rest.

In order to understand what a moving observer will see, one must then make more complex calculations involving the Lorentz transformations and the Doppler effect. One will then realize that this observer does not see what is really going on. Illusions are not the truth.

Galileo's Relativity Principle does not hold true because of the presence of the aether, which was discovered by Descartes. There is no moving frame of reference any more. It must be immobile. Because of the Doppler effect, and also because any observer is transformed at high speed, any phenomenon which is not seen from an absolute point of view cannot be observed as true. A distortion occurs. The illusion is so perfect that this observer can always presume that he is at rest. But he is not.

Descartes himself knew that aether should exist as a medium for light waves. He actually discovered aether. His x, y and z system of coordinates definitely suppose a frame of reference at rest inside aether. There is no need to transpose values from one frame to another any more, as Lorentz did. The frame at rest must always prevail. Quite simply, a moving observer is always wrong.

The Lorentz transformations revisited.

So the Lorentz equations should simply be seen from a geometrical absolute point of view, using the � angle. Suppose that the aether wind is blowing at .866 c. This is the beta value, and the theta angle is given by :

��= .866 � = arc sin � � = 60°

One will also need a clock synchronization convention for the frame at rest :

t = 0


There is no absolute time shift, so t = 0 everywhere. The goal is to obtain t' = 0 while x = x' = 0 as a synchronization convention. The zero distance there facilitates such a convention.

Then, using x units in absolute light seconds (x = 1 is 186,000 miles or 300 000 km) and t units in absolute true seconds, one can finally rewrite the Lorentz transformations this way :

The Lorentz transformations revisited. Isn't this simple?

But this is true only when t = 0.

x' indicates the contraction but t' indicates only the time shift.

Those equations are much simpler than Lorentz's. The main difference is that values are absolute and referenced to the same frame, which is at rest.

Please pay attention to this: t' time is absolute because it is truly displayed by moving clocks, but it is nevertheless slower than t, which is the only absolute true time.

Those transformations are effective. They show the difference between any wave system dimensions and wave state while it is at rest and while it is moving. It should be emphasized that the true variable x concerns the electron's wavelength at rest; the true variable t concerns its phase at rest. There is no space/time effect. But one can suppose a matter entity (which is made of electrons) undergoing those changes as well; then the x and x' variables apply to distances between objects measured in light seconds, and t is measured in absolute seconds. Let's repeat because this was seldom understood in the past: despite the fact that it is absolute (it represents the time truly displayed by moving clocks), the t' time is two times slower here.

1. The first equation indicates a contraction according to the cosine of 60°.

2. There is no change on any transverse axis: y' = y; z' = z.

3. The time equation indicates a time shift according to the sine of 60°.

4. A consequence of this is that clocks will run slower according to the cosine of 60°.

The x values are for a point while it is at rest. The x' and t' absolute values are for a point while it is moving. Note that in such a moving world events are not simultaneous. This does not only apply to clocks. From a mechanical point of view, this is necessary in order to cancel the waves' different speed forward and backward. Let's make it clear, this is not really a time effect, but rather a cause and effect distortion. Surprisingly, causes take place sooner at the rear of any moving system.

When x is 1 light seconds, a contracted .866 c moving clock actually is at x' = x cos 60° = .5 light second, and it runs two times slower. It does not indicate the absolute t time any more. But this clock really indicates .866 relative slower seconds less than another one which is at x = x' = 0. This means that the time equation can be even more simple:

Relative time actually recorded by the .866 c moving clock for t = 0, x = 1 and x' = .5:

t' = –�

t' is not in absolute t seconds, but the clock's needle really indicates t' = –.866 second.

Poincaré found this value while trying to synchronizing clocks by exchanging light signals back and forth : � / (1 – � ^ 2) = 3,464 absolute seconds for x = 2; x' = 1 (hence for one true light second), but found that it would be impossible to detect this time shift.

On the other hand, the clocks' slowing down is real but the absolute time does not follow the clock. So this cannot be evaluated right now. One will have to check what a moving observer will see first.

Finally one can transpose any object or clock's values after a given delay, say t = 1000 seconds :

x2 = x1 + � t x2 = 0 + .866 * 1000 x2 = 866 light second.

t = (x2– x

1) / � t = (866 – 0) / .866 t = 1000 seconds.

x' = x cos �

t' = –x sin �

� = arc sin (v / c)


Any object moving at .866 c sure will be .866 light seconds farther one second later. This is obvious. However one should be wary of the obviousness. For example, one might think that using a rule which is contracted to half of its normal length, a moving observer would think that a 866 light second distance is 1732.

Absolutely not.

In fact, it is exactly the opposite. A moving observer simply cannot measure a static distance correctly. The most common tool for measuring distances is the radar. However the speed of light will seem to be four times faster between two points at rest. Between two moving points, it is slowed down to 1/4 according to g ^ 2 (g = .5 here).

Surprisingly, using a radar, this moving observer will observe that static objects are contracted and encountering the Lorentz transformations. A static observer will observe a moving one exactly in the same manner. There is a reciprocity, and finally, nobody can tell for sure which one is moving: this leads to Relativity.

Clocks are slowing down.

So any observer moving at .866 c speed will think that a 866 light seconds (l/s) absolute distance is worth only 433 l/s. Not 1732 l/s. And he will also think that because he himself is at rest, the clock at rest is moving at .866 c and contracted to half of its normal length.

In order to stay consistent with his space time system, he must then consider that his own clock must indicate 500 seconds instead of 1000 while the other clock is crossing the 866 l/s point. He simply thinks that it is the 433 l/s point.

This is only a mathematical reasoning, but it was also demonstrated mechanically above. So things should really happen like this.

There is no true reciprocity.

On the other hand, this new set of equations certainly does not explain what a moving observer will see. Equations should first show what is going on, not what it looks like. Then one may transpose values in order to show what the illusion will be. And the illusion will definitely be Einstein's Special Relativity.

The point is that this analysis has never been done correctly. Among thousands of texts and books on this subject, nobody, I repeat nobody did note that Lorentz was right.

Einstein (and Poincaré to a less extent) was misled because Relativity is highly fascinating.

Lorentz was much less naive.

The mass increase.

As Lorentz himself predicted, the moving electron electrostatic charge should be compressed inside a smaller volume. This indicates that its mass should increase at high speed.

This was verified by W. Kauffman by 1900, using electrons moving through a magnetic field. As a consequence of the Lorentz transformations the electron (and matter ) mass should increase at high speed according to the gamma factor, which equals 1 / cos(theta) = 2. It should double at .866 c and today it is well admitted that the mass gain m' is given by:

m' = gamma * m – m m' = m / cos(theta) – m

However, it is less known that this mass gain m' is responsible for kinetic energy. Check this for small speeds; Newton's formula becomes wrong at very high speed while Einstein's one is always accurate. Please use MKS system, that is E as kinetic energy in joules, m' in kilograms, c and v (speed) in meters per second, and m = 1 kg for example:

E = m'c 2

...yields approximately the same results as Newton's: E = mv 2 / 2

There is no true Relativity.

Relativity still proves to be true as an illusion. On the one hand, Relativity is what we see. It is what we note. It is highly useful, because we can predict phenomena according to it. On the other hand space, motion, time and the speed of light are absolute values. Clearly, what is really going on is also absolute.

Newton used to say :

"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Because Lorentz was standing on Newton's shoulders, he saw even farther. But he still is misunderstood after 100 years.

Today, we are standing on Lorentz's shoulders and we also can see farther. My contribution is a mobile spherical standing wave


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | You are here. | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

system which proves to match the electron behavior and also a complete and consistent wave theory about matter and all physical phenomena. It is so simple that nobody would believe it.

In my opinion, the electron alone explains the whole Universe.

Gabriel LaFreniere





THE WAVE THEORY POSTULATES

Matter is made of waves.

The material universe is made purely out of aether.

A Wave Theory for matter and all forces.

THE WAVE THEORY POSTULATES

Albert Einstein's second postulate says that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. This is totally false. From an absolute point of view, light travels at a constant speed through aether, but any moving observer will be misled because of the Lorentz transformations, which are nothing else but a Doppler effect.

Aether exists. Matter is purely made out of electrons, which are spherical standing waves. Such waves do not disappear because aether is full of strong and constant waves incoming from all matter in the universe, whose energy is transferred to electrons. Then this energy is radiated by electrons as spherical wavelets, and all forces work using such wavelets.

Because any wave exerts a radiation pressure, the result is motion. This motion involves the Doppler effect, so one should understand what is going on while a standing wave structure moves through aether. This leads to the Lorentz transformations.

This means that standing waves inside matter should obey the Lorentz transformations. Matter must contract on its displacement axis. It must slow down its evolution speed and a time shift will also occur.

Lorentz was right. Surprisingly, this leads to Relativity. Lorentz's Relativity.

The Postulates.

Most of the the following postulates were in my first book La Théorie de l'Absolu ( The theory of Absolute) in May 2000.

1. Aether exists.

2. Electrons are spherical standing waves units capable of motion.

3. Each electron is amplified by incoming waves from all electrons in the Universe.

4. The speed of aether waves is constant and absolute.

5. All electrons at rest oscillate on the same constant frequency.

6. Matter is made purely out of electrons.

7. All forces are the result of genuine Huygens' spherical wavelets.

8. The radiation pressure is a repulsive force, and it is the only existing force.

9. The shade effect is an attractive force as a result of a radiation pressure from the opposite direction.

10. Motion is the result of the radiation pressure.

11. Matter mass is fixed with its waves' energy.

12. The law of Constancy of physical phenomena as worded by Henri Poincaré is true.

13. Action and reaction wave forces are submitted to the Doppler effect and they are simultaneous.

14. Energy is the result of motion.

15. There is only one basic speed: the speed of aether waves, which is also the speed of light.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_postulates.htm

1 - THE AETHER

2 - ELECTRONS

3 - THE AMPLIFICATION PROCESS

16. A Cartesian frame of reference is at rest inside aether and its coordinates are absolute.

17. Space and time values should be linked to the electron's constant frequency and wavelength.

18. Any Effect has a Cause and becomes a Cause acting at the speed of light by means of waves.

19. Matter waves undergo the Lorentz Transformations.

20. Facts are absolute, hence Relativity is false.

21. The law of Relativity is true because it only describes appearances.

22. Gravity is the result of a slight deficit in the electrons' wavelets action because they are spherical.

23. The light is made of composite wavelets pulsed by electrons on a lower secondary frequency.

And now, let us take a closer look.

Descartes discovered aether (�� or Aither from Greek mythology) as a medium for light waves. However, aether proves to be much more important because all forces are transmitted by aether waves, and because matter itself is made of spherical standing waves.

Aether should be homogeneous and elastic in order to transmit lossless waves. Fresnel was wrong. The light waves do not oscillate transversally, so there is no need for a very special rigid medium capable of transmitting such waves.

Because there is no infinite, aether should exist inside a huge but still finite space. Because of its elasticity, it could also expand gradually. This could explain the expansion of the Universe.

The whole Universe is made purely out of aether. Nothing else. So the Wave Theory's first postulate should be:

The aether exists as a homogeneous and elastic substance inside a huge but finite space, and as a medium for waves responsible for matter and all forces.

Electrons are spherical standing wave systems which can move using the Doppler effect. Each unit is identical. It should be pointed out that it does not contain ingoing and outgoing waves. It is rather an oscillator. Some of its energy is still present inside a one meter radius sphere, but most of it certainly is effective inside an atom's area. Because nodes and antinodes appear two times per period, there are two possible spins for electrons. Positrons are identical and also permit two spins while vibrating in-between.

Electrons could have been created during a very long period. One can presume that many aether waves could rarely add themselves exactly at the same point, using Huygen's principle.

Electrons are spherical standing wave units capable of motion.

Any standing wave system usually very quickly radiates all of its energy. In order to be stable it must be fed with energy. The page on wave mechanics explains the amplification process by means of the lens effect.

This energy first came from waves which were already present inside aether. But now it comes from all the electrons of the whole Universe. Those waves contain huge quantities of energy, which is constantly recycled and returned to aether in all directions.

Electrons are amplified by incoming waves from all other electrons in the Universe.


4 - THE SPEED OF LIGHT

5 - THE ELECTRON'S CONSTANT FREQUENCY

6 - THERE IS NOTHING BUT ELECTRONS

7 - HUYGENS' WAVELETS

8 - THE RADIATION PRESSURE

It is a well-known fact that the speed of a wave propagating through any homogeneous medium is constant. Its frequency and its amplitude have no effect. There is no difference while they are crossing other waves either. Any moving observer certainly cannot measure this speed correctly because he encounters the Lorentz transformations. This explains why Relativity appears (but only appears) to be true.

The light and aether waves' speed is constant and absolute.

The electron spin can be explained because standing waves present nodes and antinodes two times per period. If so, the frequency for both spins must be the same, but it should slow down at high speed according to the Lorentz transformations. It should also be the same for positrons. Mechanically, any amplification process generates a trend towards higher frequencies, but because aether cannot be perfect it should have a limit. Moreover, all electrons should adjust their frequency in the same neighborhood, explaining why there are no free positrons.

The resulting wavelength is incredibly small, certainly less then 10 ^ –18 meter. However, the electron's frequency must decrease while accelerating, in accordance with the Lorenz transformations.

All electrons at rest oscillate on the same constant frequency. However, the rate for moving electrons must slow down in accordance with the Lorentz transformations.

Any particle which is not an electron or a positron is made of several electrons or positrons. For example, a quark contains two electrons and a secondary standing wave system always exists between them as a result of their waves' addition and amplification. This appears to be an electrostatic field, a magnetic field, or a much more intense gluonic field while they are very close to each other. Such gluonic fields are also matter, they may contain a lot of energy as a mass increase but they still are electrons.

Matter is made purely out of electrons.

The wave mechanics page explains the electron's amplification process as a lens effect. Electrons borrow energy from aether waves and constantly radiate it. This produces spherical wavelets, which are compressed or expanded according to the Doppler effect. Hence, the Huygens' Principle appears to be true, but there is an important difference. The number of those wavelets is not infinite. The very small difference between an infinite and a finite number of wavelets can explain gravity. Those wavelets can explain light and its polarization, and they can also explain all forces.

Neutrinos do not exist. Photons do not exist. Maxwell's electromagnetic waves do not exist. The electrons' Quantum properties have been incorrectly transferred to light.

Light and all forces are the result of genuine Huygens' spherical wavelets emitted by electrons.

Aether waves can exert a pressure on electrons. They can accelerate matter, decelerate it or change its direction. This phenomenon is explained on the page concerning wave mechanics.


9 - MOTION

10 - THE MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALENCE

11- THE SHADE EFFECT

12 - THE LAW OF ALL LAWS

13 - ACTION AND REACTION

Radiation pressure is the only existing force.

There is no attractive force. Any attraction effect is a result of forces in opposite direction. The radiation pressure is a repulsive force, and the result is motion.

Motion is the result of radiation pressure.

The electron can move using the Doppler effect and this produces a wave compression the same way a "subsonic boom" does.

The wave theory shows that kinetic energy can be explained by the means of active and reactive forces according to the Doppler effect. The same calculation also shows how action and reaction work, and why matter mass must increase as Lorenz predicted.

Matter mass is fixed with its waves' energy, and because motion produces wave compression in accordance with the Doppler effect, it also increases their energy, thus their mass.

The electrons absorb energy from the aether waves, and so waves coming from any opposite direction are stronger in comparison. This is the shade effect, an attractive force.

Usually electrons also radiate the same quantity of energy in all directions and the final result is null. However, this is not the case any more while two of them are close together. Then the on-axis radiation causes a stronger effect. This means that the shade effect is then stronger for transverse directions, and the result is a transverse attractive force.

The shade effect causes the radiation pressure from opposite directions to be stronger, making it an attractive force.

The second main postulate from Einstein's theory of Relativity says that "all the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame". This is fully true.

However, this "law of all laws" was Henri Poincaré's discovery, and he also discovered Relativity. What should be called "the Law of Constancy of physical phenomena" was worded by Poincaré himself in 1904, hence before Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity:

"The laws of physical phenomena are the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation, so that we have not or could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in

such a motion." - Henri Poincaré.

According to Newton's third law, any action should be followed by an opposite reaction of equal force. This law appears to be false since the discovery of Relativity. Because waves are involved, the Doppler effect should be involved too. The reactive force is not always opposite either, but from any observer's point of view, it seems to be so.


14 - ENERGY

15 - ANY MOTION IS COMPOSITE

16 - THE CARTESIAN FRAME OF REFERENCE

17 - SPACE AND TIME DO NOT TRANSFORM

Although forces such as gravity cannot act faster then the speed of light, they can still act in a simultaneous way. This is no longer true while a system is moving through aether, but is still works as if it was simultaneous because of the Lorentz transformations and because of Poincaré's "law of all laws" as worded above.

Action and reaction wave forces are submitted to the Doppler effect and they are simultaneous.

The radiation pressure can accelerate or decelerate matter. Then the Doppler effect is increased or decreased, and matter wave energy also changes.

A very special case of energy is the gluonic field mass, which might be seen as "canned kinetic energy" because only very fast electrons and positrons can produce it and maintain it while they are "glued" together. A gluonic field is a sort of "wave spring" capable of accelerating particles. This phenomenon explains why energy can be extracted from the fission of radioactive elements or from hydrogen to helium fusion.

Energy is the result of motion.

Any motion must be seen as a series of zigzag or round trip displacements, whose speed is that of light and is always the same. Any other speed is composite in nature. So any speed faster than the speed of light is impossible.

Because aether exists, matter as standing waves really works according to the Lorentz transformations. This postulate explains why the electron frequency decreases at high speed, and why distances on the displacement axis contracts.

There is only one basic speed: the speed of light.

Descartes discovered both aether and the frame of reference system known as the Cartesian frame. From that very instant Galileo's Relativity principle should have been declared invalid. Such a "Galilean inertial frame of reference" is incompatible with any motion using absolute values.

From a mechanical point of view, the Lorentz transformations were already foreseeable. It should be pointed out that Woldemar Voigt and Albert Michelson both found this incompatibility before Lorentz between 1885 and 1887.

A Cartesian frame of reference is at rest inside aether and its coordinates are absolute.

Space and time do not transform because they do not really exist. As soon as possible, they should be referenced to electrons at rest as a convention. For now, and maybe forever, "at rest" means "in our galaxy" because of the law of Relativity, which is worded in Postulate No. 21.

Speaking about space contraction and time dilation is absurd. Speaking of gravity as a space curvature is delirious, especially while one does not explain how and why gravity can do that. In the future, this will certainly make scientists laugh a lot.

Space and time values should be linked to the electron's wavelength and frequency while it is at rest as compared to our galaxy.


18 - THE CAUSALITY PRINCIPLE

19 - THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS

20 - FACTS ARE ABSOLUTE

21 - THE LAW OF RELATIVITY

22 - GRAVITY

Wave mechanics indicates that any event causes new events.

A Cause may be seen as a motion, electronic waves being more or less compressed because of the Doppler effect. Then they radiate compressed wavelets adding or destroying themselves, and the result is a stronger positive or negative force, which produces many Effects as a motion change all around. And so on. This means that any Effect becomes a Cause.

This strongly indicates that the future is already fixed; this is determinism. One can nevertheless admit that inside aether, the waves' energy could be randomly distributed among aether granules. Then the result could also be randomly distributed, and this is a significant step towards our Liberty...

So the previous Causality principle "The same causes produce the same effects" may be wrong. Personally, I wouldn't agree with that, but this is very subjective, indeed irrelevant here.

Any Effect has a Cause and becomes a new Cause acting at the speed of light by means of waves.

Lorentz was right. Matter really transforms at high speed. This is one of the most fundamental laws in nature, and it should be called "Lorentz's first law" :

Matter contracts itself on its displacement axis in the same manner as the standing waves of which it is made. Because of the Doppler effect and in accordance with its absolute speed through the aether, this contraction produces a time shift, an increase of

its mass, and a reduction of its evolution speed.

Albert Einstein was wrong. The Lorentz transformations indicated a Reciprocity, which leads to Relativity. However, one should beware of mathematics. All politicians can transform statistics, but scientists simply cannot transform time and space.

Aether cannot be verified, but it still exists. Any phenomenon should be evaluated as if it was at rest. Otherwise it will seem distorted. There is no true Reciprocity. There is no true Relativity.

Facts are absolute.

However, Relativity proves to be a very useful, indeed essential, in order to predict what will seem to happen. One should be aware that it is an illusion, but it still is what happens according to our senses.

Our world is highly Relative. Because it was Lorentz's idea first, it should be called Lorentzian Relativity. It usually appears to be the same as Einstein's, but it uses a different way to evaluate moving objects. So it sometimes better predicts different effects and explains fairly well many phenomena such as the twin paradox and the Sagnac effect, for example.

Very few people could understand Einstein's Relativity. Lorentz's Relativity appears to be much simpler:

From its own point of view, any material body seems at rest and other entities only act, react, and seem affected by the Lorentz transformations according to their apparent speed.


23 - LIGHT

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | You are here. | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

Gravity is only a very weak residual force compared to the huge quantities of energy involved inside matter. One should first consider that waves traveling through aether are mainly flat waves, for which radiation pressure is exerted in an optimal way. However, this is no longer the case for wavelets emitted by electrons. Those waves are spherical and cannot exert a maximum radiation pressure on the whole area containing an electron. A significant part of them is oriented under a certain angle. This can be evaluated using mathematics by means of Huygens' Principle. The differential calculus invented by Newton and Leibniz solved this problem by the infinitely small, however, a very simple computer program can evaluate a finite number of wavelets, and one can easily show that the result is not exactly the same.

Newton's formula works correctly but from this new point of view one can find a lot of anomalies. The G constant cannot be perfectly constant. Gravity does not use specific particles or waves. It is definitely important for celestial mechanics but it certainly is not the "fundamental phenomenon" of the Universe.

The Sun's Gravity cannot bend light waves, but there are plenty of particles around the Sun which can. A "General Relativity theory" for such a non-significant force is useless and obsolete.

Because Huygens' Principle does not give the same results using a finite number of wavelets, a finite number of electrons explains Gravity as the result of a small deficit between the radiation pressure from curved waves on one hand and on the other

hand, the shade effect involving plane waves containing exactly the same amount of energy.

Light is made of spherical wavelets emitted all around by electrons which add or destroy themselves according to Huygens' Principle. All radiations from radio frequencies to gamma are identical, being pulsated on a lower secondary frequency. This happens only while electrons are destabilized. Then they oscillate around their atom's core like a pendulum, and the light is polarized if they oscillate along a straight line. Radio waves occur while free electrons move back and forth inside any metallic wire antenna.

Augustin Fresnel was wrong: light waves do not oscillate transversally. The wave diagram shows patterns which are alternately in phase, then in phase opposition, and such zones do oscillate transversally. Electrons can react correctly because half of them are also in phase opposition. When electrons oscillate along a circle there is no polarization, albeit it still can rotate clockwise or counterclockwise.

I know that nobody will believe it, but light is not stopped by matter. Matter as standing waves simply cannot stop regular traveling waves. However, the light can exert a pressure on half of the electrons according to their spin. So all electrons will finally radiate wavelets which will cancel the incoming light effects. This produces a shadow behind any massive object. See the page on light for more details.

Heat, light or any radiation can expel one electron out of its normal atomic layer. Then it will come back or be replaced by another electron. This may induce a chemical reaction or an electric current. This explains why our eyes, a photographic emulsion, or an electronic device will detect light. Albert Einstein won a Nobel prize for this (his explanation was correct, albeit he did not believe that electrons do not rotate around the nucleus). The point is: such a detection cannot occur unless at least one electron is expelled, according to a constant threshold. Obviously, this threshold is a quantum. The light seems to work using quanta, but this behavior is that of the electron instead. So, photons do not exist.

The light is made of spherical wavelets emitted all around by electrons adding constructively destructively in accordance with Huygens' Principle. Radio waves, light, and higher frequency radiation are identical, being pulsated on a secondary lower

frequency.

Gabriel LaFreniere





Charles Darwin's

THEORY OF EVOLUTION

revisited.

IN THE BEGINNING OF TIMES, THERE WAS NOTHING BUT THE AETHER

Nowadays most scientists are quite sure that aether does not exist. Surprisingly, none of them checked this carefully. They just learned it from their professor.

The point is: you are not entitled to think that the aether is useless. You simply cannot prove it. If you think so, you surely are unaware of the standing waves amazing properties. And you did not carefully study Lorentz's version of Relativity, which finally proves to be true.

This web site postulates that matter is made of "moving standing waves" and that all forces are waves. Those waves need an aether. In addition, Relativity was discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré in 1904. Not by Albert Einstein. Their original version, especially Lorentz's, admits the existence of the aether. Lorentz never discarded the existence of aether until his death in 1928.

Unfortunately, Lorentz was unaware (until he was very old, in 1927) of de Broglie's "matter waves". This would have helped him around 1895 in order to explain the cause of his transformation. Standing waves actually undergo the Lorentz transformation. It is that simple. Any average intelligent person should firstly doubt Einstein's ridiculous ideas. Physics should be an exact science. Not a religion.

So, let's postulate that matter is made of waves and that those waves need a carrier: aether. Assuming this, you may imagine any hypothesis about its origin. In accordance with the Causality Principle, any effect has a Cause. And because our material universe is made purely out of aether, this Cause cannot be material any more. So it should be un-material.

You may explain the World's origin the way you prefer. You may also give this most honest and sincere answer:

"I don't know".

And so, in my opinion, one should postulate that an aether filled with waves which contain a lot of energy had to exist in the beginning of times.

Then the continuation was foreseeable:

1. Because the aether is finite and elastic, a "Big Bang" followed by an expansion occurred.

2. This explosion produced strong and abundant longitudinal traveling waves.

3. The waves created a lot of electrons and positrons.

4. Electrons and positrons were attracted together and created a lot of quarks.

5. Some quarks joined together and generated neutrons with additional gluonic fields.

6. Some neutrons received a positron in their centre and they became protons.

7. Protons attracted electrons and produced hydrogen atoms.

8. Hydrogen atoms were attracted by gravity and produced stars.

9. Those stars joined hydrogen atoms and neutrons and produced deuterium and tritium.

10. Then deuterium and tritium atoms joined together and produced helium.

11. The stars containing less hydrogen ended their life and exploded as supernovae.

12. While exploding, supernovae produced more complicated atoms.

13. Those atoms joined and produced a 2nd generation of stars and planets, the Sun and the Earth.

14. Atoms became more complex arrays of molecules.

15. On Earth, complex molecules became living cells capable of duplicating themselves.

16. Some cells joined together in the sea and generated more complex organisms.

17. Those organisms had to adapt themselves and evolved according to Darwin.

18. Evolved organisms became animals living at the expense of plants or other animals.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_evolution.htm

1 - THE CREATION OF THE AETHER

2 - THE BIG BANG (also revisited).

3 - THE ELECTRON CREATION

19. Some animals became aquatic vertebrates.

20. Some aquatic vertebrates became fishes.

21. Some fishes used their fins in order to survive out of the water and became amphibians.

22. Some amphibians did not return to water any more and became reptilians.

23. Some reptilians transformed their scales into hairs and became mammals.

24. Some mammals evolved in the trees and became primates.

25. Some mammal primates developed their brain and became homo sapiens.

Matter standing waves and force waves simply need an aether. Let's postulate that it can transmit regular longitudinal traveling waves without any loss.

In all good faith and sincerity, one must admit that there is no material explanation for aether. Its origin is postulated to be un-material.

The aether cannot be fully rigid because it can transmit waves. It must be elastic.

On the other hand, at least in mathematics, the infinite does not exist. So the aether cannot be infinite, either. Its elasticity does not necessarily leads to its expansion, but all our observations indicate that our universe is really expanding.

So let's postulate that in the beginning of times the aether suddenly begun to exist. Then there was a huge explosion which generated powerful and abundant waves.

This model does not involve any temperature, albeit aether granules could locally be capable of static vibrations. This new Big Bang theory indicates that an expanding aether could allow galaxies traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light as compared to those in the center.

Such galaxies could be so distant and so fast that they would be invisible. They could nevertheless be practically at rest inside their own portion of aether. This new approach eliminates any reference to the speed of light in order to establish their age and their distance. Otherwise, we know that our universe should be about 15 billions of years old.

Finally, our universe could be much more ancient.

The first step after the aether creation must have been the electron creation. One can show that according to Huygen's Principle, many plane waves traveling inside aether could add themselves and produce an electron. Because the whole universe is made purely of electrons, and assuming that an aether filled with waves exists, our universe then must exist. It is just a question of time.

Without any existing electron, this situation is not likely to happen, but it must happen. One chance out of billions of billions, because the wavelength and the phase must match during a very short period of time.

However, with billions of existing electrons, whose wavelength is almost the same, this situation becomes much more probable. There is still one chance out of billions. But because the time is almost infinite in such an universe, this situation is not just probable: it is a certainty.

The diagram below shows that many plane waves can generate a concentric wave system, in other words an electron.

Here there is only one plane, and this leads to a half wavelength central core. However, more waves coming from many directions would produce a full wavelength core instead.


The electron creation.

Just a few waves can produce a spherical standing wave system.

Then this system completes itself, and it can be stable because it is amplified by aether waves.

4 - THE QUARKS CREATION

Those waves must coincide in the centre for at least several wavelengths. Then the standing wave system is amplified by aether waves and it remains stable forever. New electrons can be more easily generated while there are many existing electrons around, because they produce waves whose frequency and wavelength is almost constant. Without any existing electrons around, the chances are much smaller.

In the beginning, the available time was nearly infinite. Who knows how many "years" were needed in order to make billions of electrons? In all cases, their creation was unavoidable.

This indicates that as soon as an aether filled with waves exists, our universe must exist. This is only a matter of time, or a matter of chance.

A quark is simply made of two electrons (or two positrons) very close together. However, especially on the axis joining them, their standing waves are adding themselves in a very special way. One obtains a set of plane standing waves whose phase is different in the center, canceling the normal electron negative charge. This produces a very strong "gluonic field" which can attract any other particle, and whose mass is much greater than that of one electron. This electron pair with its gluonic field then looks very much like a totally different particle.

In the beginning, the electrons' phase was randomly distributed. There was no specific electrons or positrons. As soon as a reasonable number of particles were present inside aether, those whose phase was opposite were certainly attracted together and they collided. We know that such a collision produces quarks, but most scientists think that the electron and the positron annihilate. Actually, it is much more logical to suppose that those two particles still exist inside the quarks, but that the strong gluonic field is hiding them.

Quarks are highly unstable. However, two electrons and two positrons can join together and form a two-quarks meson, which is more stable. Then another quark can join and produce a neutron.

Quark pairs.

There could be another process. We know that a collision between an electron and a positron produces two quarks, which are not identical. This could be explained by another way of producing electrons.

Most likely, one electron and one positron traveling towards each other will not truly hit each other. Their wavelength is so small that their central core cannot coincide. They will rather follow a rotating elliptical trajectory much similar to that of binary pulsars. This is called "positronium", also a highly unstable particle. However, as soon as those electrons and positrons come very close together the first time, they must change their direction in a very severe manner, the way a comet does while circumnavigating the Sun.

This severe U-turn supposes that the standing waves near the core of those particles will be transformed. The farthest ones will not; they will simply focus where the particles were supposed to be before colliding. The electron core is very small but actually its standing waves fill a huge volume much larger then that of an atom.

So, beyond a certain threshold, very fast electrons or positrons can duplicate themselves while colliding. They will join themselves and finally make two quarks instead of just one:


The farthest standing waves cannot follow a severely deviated electron.

Those waves will focus where they were supposed to and create a new electron.

The collision involves one electron and one positron.

Finally there are four particles, making one quark and one anti-quark.

DARWIN'S THEORY IS INCOMPLETE

Those particle can even deviate at least one more time allowing them to produce a second quark pair. Gluonic fields should occasionally join two quarks together and produce a more stable unit: a meson. This meson could contain three or four electrons or positrons, and the system phase could be different from that of normal electrons or positrons.

One can suppose that a meson containing three electrons at the vertices of a triangle should be stable because the three gluonic fields are especially efficient in such a position. One can also imagine four electrons at the vertices of a tetrahedron, or of a plane square. Here, there are six gluonic fields, whose mass should be important. Then a third quark or a second meson could transform them into a neutron. Three quarks could also produce a neutron in just one step, but this situation is not likely to happen.

Then a positron can join the center of a neutron and produce a proton.

Finally, the proton can capture an electron, making them a hydrogen atom. As shown above, billions and billions of hydrogen atoms will produce stars, and the evolutionary process will continue.

Because there is a lot of information indicating that life evolved on Earth for at least 4 billions years, any true scientist (that is, fully in possession of his intelligence and objectivity) should admit that Charles Darwin was right. For instance, one can follow the horse's evolution since its "eohippus" ancestors, about 50 millions years ago.

This is not debatable any more. Surprisingly it is still debated nevertheless, mostly by people who try by any means to make their religion fit in a more convenient picture.

The evolution theory should also include matter.

On the other hand Darwin only spoke about the "evolution of species", i.e. plants and animals.

I am of the opinion that Evolution Theory should also include matter, because the whole universe evolved as well from its very beginning. About 15 billions years, probably more. Our knowledge also evolved: Darwin was unaware of this.

Natural selection does not fully explain evolution.

Darwin was also unaware of DNA, chromosomes, and genetic mechanisms. Nowadays, it is a well known fact that if they were transmitted unchanged during many centuries, they very slowly but surely lead to fully static and uniform species for a given environment.

So natural selection does not fully explain evolution. The main cause is accidental and occasional mutations inside DNA. Evolution is controlled by chance, if chance does exist. Darwin emphasized natural selection, which now appears to be just one aspect of the mechanism.

This is important because chance also controlled the evolution of the whole universe from its very beginning.


Determinism.

And if chance does not exist, your freedom is purely illusion. In this case, tomorrow already exists in the energy of an infinity of waves and in the motion of an infinity of electrons. Then you can do nothing about it: tomorrow will occur, unrelentingly.

LET'S THINK

According to Darwin, we are mammal primate hominids, in other words, just animals. Our most recent discoveries about our ancestors, up to six million years, indicate that mankind, gorillas and chimpanzees have common ancestors. Darwin did predict that. They lived about 15 millions years ago.

Those discoveries also indicate that about 10 million years ago, our definitely human ancestors were already biped. They had a small brain, not bigger than that of chimpanzees. However, they had already begun to perform an amazing phenomenon: to think.

Knowing this, any human capable of thinking should conclude that just one man and one woman simply could not give birth to the whole of mankind. Let's face it: Adam and Eve, from the Bible, never existed. During all those years, thousands of humans were simultaneously living in Africa. They evolved there in much the same way as all other animals, but they evolved faster and better.

Darwin was aware of that, but he did not dare to write it. So today one must affirm it clearly.

We think with our brain.

Let's lastly say something that very few courageous people will admit: we are thinking with our brain. This is also a fairly recent discovery, for it occurred after Darwin's epoch.

This means that at the very instant of our death, logically, we stop thinking.

It is about time that everyone realizes this. Ancient Roman people used to explain that any dying person had to "expire" in order to let his soul escape from his body. They called this last breath "anima", which simply means air, and the soul name soon followed as "animus". However, they were not aware that air was material. They simply noticed that the invisible and apparently un-material wind could cause a strange effect on their skin, and that this last air pulse could very well explain the also apparently un-material nature of their thoughts.

I do not say here that human beings have no soul. I simply note that those two apparently metaphysical reasons which have been invoked in order to explain the soul's existence have been clearly identified as being physic ones. So they belong to physics.

If this does not satisfy your personal metaphysical thoughts, I cannot help. I just want to discuss physics. So please avoid annoying me about your emotional feelings and just discuss physics, because it is an exact science. Physics is the science of truth and reality.

We are animals.

We are nothing but animals. Fortunately, we are animals who can think. This is a major advantage, but this still does not exclude us from the animal kingdom. Many readers told me that they see themselves "on a higher level", but they can't explain why. Let's face it: we are simply animals.

This observation should redirect us towards a better knowledge of our behavior, for example by comparing it with that of gorillas and chimpanzees, our cousins. Psychology is not an ideal: it is a science. Our behavior as a science follows the same rules as in physics. It should need observations and experiments, and it should avoid being distorted by our thirst for absolute.

One must firstly distinguish what we are from what we should be. Clearly, we cannot see the difference any more. Our behavior was imperatively inculcated into us under the terms of often debatable principles. We cannot establish laws and habits which are compatible with our true nature any more. The result is that too many of us are frustrated, badly adapted, and unhappy.

We are evolving backwards.

Darwin did not point out that natural selection is not working properly any more because we can and do interfere. We do not accept its essential role. We can cure a lot of severe diseases which would have prevented many people from giving birth to more people suffering from the same diseases. We do not inform those people that their health problems are likely to be transferred to their children. This leads to a deterioration of mankind's general health.

Mankind is a fantastic achievement, proving that evolution normally works towards perfection. Our illogical behavior will cancel this, though. Mankind is likely to degenerate and suffer for years, and finally disappear.

Let's make it clear: a conscious, advised and responsible selection is required. Otherwise, we will simply terminate our trek. Nobody will ever be capable of repairing a human being inside all of his genes. No medicine, no genetic treatment can help.

Our Earth is overpopulated.

Nobody seems to worry about the formidable population increase nowadays. Once again, this is a severe disturbance of the normal species evolution:

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw

Even a stabilization will not be enough. Our planet needs an equitable and reasonable depopulation.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | You are here. | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |

While waiting, we are confronted with devastating pollution, generalized deforestation and the disappearance of a tremendous number of vegetal and animal species.

The damage that overpopulation has already caused is enormous and irreversible. There is a point of no return. We must intervene radically right now.

Evolution in the future.

Some day, because evolution normally works towards perfection, more animals and even plants may also be capable of thinking. Such events may happen in billions of years from now, or sooner, here or anywhere in the universe, but they will happen.

Students should avoid constantly repeating other's ideas. They should doubt them, in accordance with Descartes' "doubt is the origin of wisdom". Actually, most of the 6.5 billion people on this planet are very often wrong, and this leads to more errors, and finally to decadence. Many people also intentionally spread errors, for political or financial reasons. Many people even lie to their own children, which is definitely the most despicable thing on Earth. Let's make it clear: unless he admits it, anybody who is in doubt does not say the truth, and so he lies.

A lot of schools, high schools and Universities in North America simply avoid speaking of Darwin in order to "preserve" their student's religion. Some of them even pretend that Darwin was wrong. I myself had to suffer this shame. I had been recruited as a boarder student by a very special college among all of Quebec's seventh grade best scholars. I had to perform the IQ test (they used to eliminate all candidates below 140) and finally, I took the ancient "classical course" in a highly erudite environment.

In spite of that, I was not told about Darwin. And what is more, I had to undergo a severe brainwashing. Fortunately, I realized that all this was wrong. I decided to escape at the age of 19, but I nevertheless had to struggle all my life in order to repair my ideas. I am still angry about it. Very angry.

Think about it.

The goal is to improve our future. Because we are animals who can think, and because this is our major advantage, the correct tool is thinking. We must repair our wrong ideas. We must also look for new ideas, and we must check whether they are wrong or not.

I had to think all my life.

It was worth the effort because I discovered that matter is made of waves.

And naturally, I can prove it.

Gabriel LaFreniere





ERRORS TO CORRECT

The Time Scanner produces a special Doppler effect whose characteristic is the absence of transverse wavelength contraction.

Such a result is possible only if the emitter frequency slows down according to Lorentz's contraction factor.

The Lorentz transformations prove to be the exact formulation for this special Doppler effect.

The moving electron and all matter waves are undergoing the same Doppler effect: this fully explains Lorentz's Relativity.

It is just a phase and wavelength transformation because of the Doppler effect.

The error here was to think that space and time was involved.

GALILEO'S RELATIVITY PRINCIPLE IS WRONG

Planes simulating waves traveling in a moving frame of reference.

The transverse AB'A' absolute distance is given by the gamma factor: ABA / (1 – � 2 ) (1 / 2)

Let's face it: we are unable to explain clearly most phenomena such as light, gravity, atomic forces or magnetic fields. We simply ignore what is really going on.

A hypothesis is not a certainty; it must be proved.

The reason for this is that wrong ideas about matter are worse than no ideas at all. They become an obstacle for further analysis. We admitted too quickly a lot of hypotheses which were never clearly demonstrated. This page lists many of them.

Descartes invented the famous "Cartesian" frame of reference using three axes placed crosswise and the O origin where x, y, z coordinates are zero. He also discovered that light is made of waves traveling through a medium which he called the aether.

The consequence of this is that the speed of light must be evaluated with respect to the aether, which is postulated to be at rest. So, in any moving system such as the transverse AB axis below, the light propagating through the aether cannot behave like Galileo predicted any more. It rather behaves like planes flying through air. Obviously, in the presence of a strong wind, the complex AB'A' motion involves a longer distance through air then the plain ABA round trip.

Michelson also discovered that the axial AC'A' motion involves a longer distance than the transverse AB'A' one, and he realized that the difference should be measurable by means of an interferometer.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_errors.htm

The axial AC'A' absolute distance is rather given by the gamma factor squared: ACA / (1 – � 2 )

HENRI POINCARÉ'S SYMMETRIC EQUATIONS ARE WRONG

Clearly, a Galilean frame of reference cannot exist. Light is a force which involves energy, from radio waves to gamma rays. The speed of light is c with respect to the aether. Matter acts and reacts using more aether waves. So, from an absolute point of view, any event must be evaluated with respect to the Cartesian frame of reference, which is at rest.

Einstein postulated in 1905 that the speed of light is the same in all Galilean inertial frames of reference. Any intelligent person should realize that this is totally absurd. However, because Relativity is true and amazing, this is exactly what any moving observer should record. So there must exist a reason for this, and Lorenz explained it in a much better way than Einstein did.

The Lorentz transformations (1904) below are a bit complex at a first glance, but they are simply the mathematical formulation of a special Doppler effect involving a slower frequency. Actually, they are much similar to Woldemar Voigt's equations (1887) about the Doppler effect.

Let's just examine the first equation above. Poincaré noted that coordinates could be evaluated in light seconds and speed in light seconds per second: beta = v / c. Also, c = 1 can be removed from all equations. Finally, the Lorentz g contraction factor can replace the whole square root above, and one obtains a simpler equation:

x' = x – beta * t / g

However, Poincaré showed that this equation could be reversed like this:

x' = (x – beta * t) / g x = (x' + beta * t') / g

An amazing symmetry and reciprocity appears. Swapping x, x' and t, t' variables does not make any difference. This is indeed what any moving observer will record, but it is not what is really going on. Poincaré discovered his famous Relativity Postulate in 1904, hence before Einstein, but he did not fully realize that those equations only describe appearances.

One should recognize that while:

x' = x – beta * t / g

the correct value for x is rather:

x = g * x' + beta * t

Such an error is deplorable. It should be emphasized that Einstein made the same mistake and that it is a well known fact that he was well aware of Poincaré's ideas, which were somewhat different from Lorentz's. This is how one can be convinced of plagiarism: similar ideas may be just a coincidence, but the same ideas including the same mistakes surely indicate a copy.

Lorentz performed much better. His 1904 version of Relativity is perfectly true. See "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of the light.", Proceedings, Amsterdam Academy, May 27, 1904. Unfortunately, he changed his mind afterwards because of Einstein's celebrity and also because he could not explain why matter should contract.

As a matter of fact, matter really contracts. Facts are absolute. For any moving entity, there can be only one time, one speed, and one position in the same Cartesian frame, which is at rest with respect to the aether. One cannot switch freely from x to x' and from t to t'


THE LIGHT WAVES DO NOT VIBRATE TRANSVERSALLY

ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES DO NOT EXIST

EINSTEIN'S POSTULATE IS WRONG

THERE IS AN AETHER

according to a different "Galilean" moving frame of reference because Galileo's Principle is wrong.

The point is: those equations involve the speed of light, and the light is not an equation. The light travels in a mechanical and absolute way.

Augustin Fresnel studied polarized light. He thought that transverse vibrations could explain this and he postulated that aether should be made of "material points separated by intervals" in order to transmit them.

However, he was wrong. Composite waves emitted simultaneously by many electrons can clearly transmit transverse patterns. Such waves are regular longitudinal waves, but the interference pattern may undulate and even rotate.

The light waves can carry transverse patterns. This explains polarization.

For example, two sources produce the above pattern if one of them is slightly moving to and fro. This explains the light polarization, which may either rotate or remain stable on a given transverse axis.

Maxwell's equations only describe how energy carried out by light or radio waves will behave. They indeed yield correct results, but they are still just equations. Let's face it: James Clerk Maxwell never demonstrated that magnetic and electric fields could really travel through empty space.

One simply cannot check whether magnetic fields really can move through empty space or not because a material device such as an antenna must be used in order to detect them. This device may transform radio waves into electric and magnetic fields as well.

It is a well known fact that Maxwell firstly imagined a mechanism made of interconnected aether vortices. However, he finally removed carefully any reference to a mechanism. Maxwell just elaborated a set of equations. He did not discover what was really going on.

Clearly, his assumption that his equations describe moving electric and magnetic fields is highly disputable. There is a more acceptable possibility: radio waves are not electromagnetic, they are rather made of aether waves capable of producing electric and magnetic fields when they attain matter.

Maxwell was a great scientist. He was well aware that all this was uncertain. He wrote: "The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy". So it is still unexplained. However, physicists in radio electricity (especially Lorentz and Poincaré) became very familiar with his equations and finally, they all forgot that it was just an hypothesis.

This was Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity most important postulate:

"The speed of light is the same in all Galilean inertial reference frames."

Surprisingly, this seems to be true. Many observers moving at different speeds will really record the same speed for light. However, this severely hurts common sense. One should investigate how come it is possible.

In 1904, Lorentz published his famous transformations and he showed that they could explain such a stunning result. He especially discovered that moving matter, including the observer and his instruments, should contract. He also found that clocks should tick slower.

Finally, the light does not really travel at the same speed in all reference frames: those transformations simply cancel the speed difference and the observer is mislead.


THE KENNEDY-THORNDYKE EXPERIMENT WAS WRONG

A simpler interferometer.

PHOTONS DO NOT EXIST

Hendrick Lorentz and Henri Poincaré discovered in 1904 that observers cannot detect their motion through aether. For example, the Michelson interferometer yields a null result because it contracts. Or Bradley's aberration is perfectly symmetric, etc.

But this does not mean that the aether does not exist.

On the contrary, Lorentz was firmly convinced that it should exist. So he established his equations (which he borrowed from Woldemar Voigt's Doppler equations) in accordance with the speed of light, which in his picture was absolute. He finally found that Voigt's constant k should be eliminated from his own transformations, because a stunning invariance occurs when k = 1.

Lorentz's equations were established in accordance with the postulate that the aether does exist.

The point is: all happens as if aether exists.

So, today's common assumption that Michelson's experience ruled out the aether and that this hypothesis has been "abandoned" is definitely wrong. Nobody ever demonstrated that the aether does not exist. It remains an acceptable hypothesis.

This is especially important because most phenomena and matter properties are still unexplained. For example, standing waves could explain magnetic fields, but they would need an aether. Matter particles also clearly exhibit wave properties. This strongly suggests that matter waves and the required medium should exist.

You may read in Wikipedia:

"The Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment, by using arms of dissimilar lengths, tested for the hiding of the aether effects due to length contraction and found none."

This is totally false. Many scientists deduced from this that the aether does not exist.

Actually, there was a serious omission: the light frequency slows down. According to Lorenz, the apparatus (not space) should contract; additionally, the source frequency (not time) should also slow down. In such a case, the number of wavelengths along a transverse axis never changes whatever the speed. It also remains the same along the displacement axis after a 90° rotation because of the contraction.

The consequence of this is that the second arm (shorter or not) is not useful any more. It can be removed like this:

Let's make it clear: the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment was a mess. The Michelson interferometer needs only one arm, not two. On condition that the Lorentz transformations are true, the second arm length makes no difference.

Descartes discovered that the light is made up of waves traveling thanks to a medium which he called the aether.

Then Fresnel studied polarization and realized that this behavior could not be explained by regular longitudinal waves. So he supposed that the light waves should vibrate transversally.

This was the first mistake. Polarization can be explained by composite longitudinal waves, because the interference pattern can undulate transversally. This supposes that the light is emitted by at least two sources, one of them being stable (for example a proton) and the other one (for example an electron) very slightly vibrating along a straight or circular path. Moreover, the electron frequency is constant, but the light frequency is that of the vibrations. The light is emitted on a secondary frequency.

Then Einstein studied the photoelectric effect and he supposed that the light should be made of particles because, according to Planck's constant, it always contains the same amount of energy for a given frequency.

This was the second mistake. Why should this constant amount of energy be imperatively attributed to light instead of electrons? After all, electrons are present for both the light emission and reception. So the quantum properties of light may be allotted to electrons as well. Finally, the emitted light really contains the equivalent of a photon of energy, but it is still just made of waves.

And finally, Compton never explained how "his" photons were working. He failed to explain the true nature of electric and magnetic fields. He failed to explain the electron mechanism. All students in the world should read how he interpreted his results despite his total ignorance. They would realize that there is still a long way towards the truth.


ELECTRONS DO NOT ROTATE AROUND THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS

The link between Fresnel's number and the Balmer series is obvious.

G. N. LEWIS WAS RIGHT : THE ATOMIC EXTERNAL STRUCTURE IS CUBIC

MATTER AND ANTIMATTER DO NOT ANNIHILATE

Nobody can transform so many uncertainties into certitude.

From 1907 to 1911, Ernest Rutherford experimented with fast positive helium nuclei hitting thin material such as gold foil. He discovered that some of them were deviated and even bounced back like a ball hitting an obstacle.

Rutherford did not approve Thompson's "plum pudding" atomic model and he suggested that electrons should rotate like planets around the atom nucleus. Otherwise, in his picture, protons would simply attract electrons and produce a catastrophic collision.

One should be aware that this experience did not indicate that electrons really rotate around the atom. It simply indicates that a repulsion effect occurs between positive particles and that matter is amazingly permeable.

Surprisingly, one hundred years later, nobody could really detect such a rotation, which is nevertheless universally accepted. This theory is wrong, though, and it is now a severe obstacle for further discoveries about electronics, magnetic fields, light emission, chemical reactions, etc.

In 1911, nobody knew that electrostatic fields work differently at atomic scale. Many electrons closely put together behave as a whole, and this significantly reduces the nucleus attraction effect. Moreover, because it is a composite wave emitter, the nucleus must radiate waves according to Fresnel's diffraction. The interference pattern exhibits periodic null amplitude zones where electrons can be captured. The gray vertical lines below indicate distances according to Fresnel's number (1 on the right up to 7 on the left hand side), and electrons captured in each corresponding atomic layer should obviously emit light waves according to the Balmer series, and also Lyman, Paschen, etc..

Gilbert Newton Lewis (1875-1946), a famous American chemist, believed that electrons were regularly distributed around the atomic nucleus. This was J. J. Thompson's "plum pudding" model. In 1912, he was aware that only the external electronic layer, containing a maximum of 8 electrons, was responsible for chemical binding.

Lewis also noted that 8 electrons regularly spaced on a sphere should be placed on the 8 vertices of a cube. He investigated this hypothesis and found that it was consistent with most chemical structures. Each element can be seen as a cube with a given number of electrons on its vertices, up to 8. Then one may join two or more elements together in such a way that empty vertices in one element are filled with one or two electrons from another element.

The Lewis method is still well known today, simply because it works. This is experimental evidence that the cubic structure is more then just a theory. However, Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr preferred the planet-like hypothesis, which replaced Thompson's model and is still accepted today in spite of the lack of proofs. Such an error is especially deplorable because Lewis' model was based on experiments, while Rutherford's was just hypothetical.

Lewis also suggested that the quantum of light should be named "photon". Nobody is perfect.

It is a well known fact since Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered quarks, that all complex particles including protons and neutrons are made of quarks. It is also well known that electron/positron collisions produce quarks.

By stubbornly clinging to this idea that electrons and positrons put together annihilate, one can no longer admit that they could rather be glued together because of gluonic fields and produce quarks and other particles, hence matter. Gluonic fields contain a lot of energy, making it impossible to detect those glued electrons and positrons any more.


NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY IS WRONG

THE STANDING WAVE TRUE MECHANISM SHOULD BE REVIEWED

GRAVITY IS NOT LINKED TO RELATIVITY

There is no evidence of complete destruction when matter encounters antimatter. There is an enormous energy dispersion, though, which is likely to hide or severely mask the escaping electrons and positrons from the detectors. One should bear in mind that a proton, whose mass is 1829 times that of an electron, may contain only six electrons and one positron. All the rest is energy from gluonic fields which completely transform the nucleus picture.

The assumption that E = mc2 indicates that matter can be totally transformed into energy is false.

On the one hand, energy stored inside electrostatic or gluonic fields of force can be transformed into kinetic energy, which is the result of Lorentz's mass increase due to motion. Actually, moving particles undergo a severe forward Doppler effect, hence more energy as a result of a higher frequency.

On the other hand, electrons and positrons are indestructible.

Let's make it perfectly clear: Euclidean geometry is the only acceptable one.

Euclid's geometry is based on evidences that any intelligent person should understand. There is no need for further analysis, revocation or derogation. It works. It is that simple.

So any attempt to bypass it should be seen as highly suspect.

The common assumption is that standing waves are the superposition of two opposite wave trains. This interpretation sometimes works but it is true only from a mathematical point of view. The animated image below was made using this principle, and it is correct.

Regular standing waves.

However, this is not what is really going on. Standing waves exhibit regularly spaced nodes where amplitude is always zero. From a mechanical point of view, no energy can cross this point where there is absolutely no evidence of traveling waves. The correct interpretation is that the medium substance is moving to and fro and that waves are bouncing from one node to the nearest one.

Standing waves are not traveling waves. It is a totally different phenomenon. The error arises from the fact that true experiments in physics are most of the time replaced by mathematics. One should be aware that all physical phenomena have a cause. They should be explained by mechanics, not mathematics. This is important because more complex phenomena definitely escape the opposite wave trains theory. For example, the first node diameter around the central core is .75 lambda for circular standing waves while it is rather a full wavelength wide in the case of spherical standing waves.

What is more, the program below clearly shows that this variation actually depends on amplitude. Thus, if circular waves incoming from one side are stronger, the node is no longer circular. It becomes elliptic and it may also move. This is a first indication that two spherical standing wave sets can definitely influence each other. It is the very first step towards a mechanical explanation of Newton's action and reaction law.


This apparently immaterial advocacy in favor of a better analysis of standing waves will become of the utmost importance as soon as the wave nature of matter will be recognized.

Gravity is not the "fundamental force" of the universe. It is just a force like others, all of them being caused by aether waves through fields of force.

There is no need to invoke Relativity in order to explain gravity, which means that there is no General Relativity. Moreover, although it leads to the same conclusions as Einstein's, Lorentz's Relativity is better because it can be explained from a mechanical point of view. It fully explains all phenomena related to matter, motion and forces including gravity, which also works in the absence of motion anyway.

And finally, gravity certainly transforms matter mechanically in such a way that it may behave differently, for example causing clocks to run slower.


THE PERIHELION PRECESSION OF MERCURY IS CAUSED BY MECHANICAL FORCES

GRAVITY DOES NOT BEND SPACE

GRAVITY DOES NOT ATTRACT LIGHT

Relativity does not involve gravity, so it does not explain Mercury's anomaly.

It should be emphasized that this problem has been much too much publicized in the past. So small a difference (only 43" of an arc for a whole century) is caused by a lot of minor influences and it is quite insignificant with respect to a theory which is supposed to be so great.

According to Newton's laws, a theoretical elliptic orbit should be stable. Mercury's orbit being slightly unstable, one must find a mechanical reason for this.

For example, Le Verrier did not really consider the fact that the sun is very large, making atoms from its surface attract Mercury differently. Mercury's orbit is indeed very small, from 46 to 70 million kilometers. There is frequently more than a 1° angle to the sun surface and the force according to the cosine is less than .9998 in this case, not 1. The important point is that this angular difference is not constant because the distance is not. To say it simply, the attraction force is not exactly proportional to the distance, making Newton's equation inaccurate.

More examples.

The sun itself is not static with respect to the whole solar system. It certainly orbits around a center of gravity which is that of all the solar system. Jupiter and Saturn for example are huge planets containing a large amount of matter, and Le Verrier did not take their influence on the sun into account. He was not that meticulous. In addition, Jupiter remains in conjunction with Saturn for several of Mercury's orbits. Then a resonance effect could occur.

The solar wind is rather strong near Mercury and its effect may not be negligible for a whole century. It is slightly oblique because of the sun rotation. The 11 years cycle could also cause a resonance. One could also examine the radiation pressure from the sun, which is 9 times stronger than on earth, and study how all that light and heat should be radiated from Mercury. Astronomers are now aware that Mercury is very slowly rotating in a peculiar way. Newton's action and reaction law should apply.

The true effect of motion on gravity is still not well known. The sun rotation could produce a torque effect. Gravity may not be fully additive, that is, gravity from Jupiter and Saturn could decrease when they are behind the sun. There are strong magnetic fields around the sun, which are also present in the solar wind around Mercury. This planet contains plenty of iron and may react just like a big magnet. Another cause could be the tide effect, which is severe on Mercury; actually, the forces involved could even destroy it if its orbit was a bit smaller.

One should realize that a century is a very long period of time as compared to a 43" of an arc shift. The point is that Mercury is a very small planet which is likely to react to dozens of small abnormal causes. Obviously, Le Verrier's calculus was inaccurate. Slowly but surely, searchers will study all of them and finally find which one has the most significant influence. Because Einstein did not examine any of them, his non-Euclidean tensor calculus is very likely to become obsolete.

Very close to the sun, gravity does not decrease according to the well known square or the distance law. As a matter of fact, there is no gravity at all in the center, where it should rather be infinite according to Newton's equation. This indicates that Einstein's calculus, that is an artificial space bending, is preferable and may replace Newton's formula for small distances. However, it is only a method, not an explanation.

Any intelligent person should realize that gravity cannot bend space.

It is definitely a weird idea.

The Sun's gravity cannot deviate light because it is made of waves. However, space around the sun is filled up with particles which can produce a lens effect. The result is the same, but the cause is not. It is a well known fact that the light is severely deviated in the earth's atmosphere, even at very high altitudes.

This occurs because there are still some air molecules and other particles there. It should be the same around the sun because of the solar wind. The same phenomenon should also occur around galaxies, which are surrounded with gas clouds, but the lens effect there is certainly not perfectly regular because the gas distribution is not.

The Fizeau experiment showed that moving transparent substances such as water could modify the speed of light or produce a deviation. The point is that the solar wind particles are faster when their density is higher. This may partially cancel the deviation difference, but not exactly. So the deviation is certainly not constant, and the difference will become perceptible using more precise instruments.

This will indicate that Einstein's theory about the so-called space curvature is wrong.

In addition, the blue light deviates more drastically than red inside normal optical glass, but the difference becomes smaller for very light glass such as quartz or fluorite. It is even smaller for gas, and especially rarefied gas. So the deviation for red and blue should be almost identical, but not exactly. The difference should become visible using sophisticated devices, and this would also indicate here


NEWTON'S LAWS CAN BE UPGRADED

THE ACTUAL BIG BANG THEORY IS DISPUTABLE

THE LIGHT IS NOT STOPPED BY MATTER.

that Einstein's ideas are wrong. As a matter of fact, space could not bend differently for red and blue light...

Any experimented astronomer should admit that Eddington's results were highly disputable. In 1919, they should have pointed out that his small Newton telescope, suffering from unacceptable coma, could certainly not record so small a deviation. However, more recent results indeed indicate a deviation, but they are strangely reported in a mystic manner. Such people bowing very low in front of their Einstein prophet should be considered with suspicion. We need more objective data, and they are unlikely to be constant. They will certainly not match exactly Einstein's predictions, which were probably influenced by previous astronomic observations.

And finally, gravity cannot change the light wavelength either. Matter undergoes severe constraints on the surface of a very large star. This certainly changes the way light is emitted, and especially its wavelength. The whole process may even be fully compromised under more severe conditions such as in a black hole.

Most people think that Newton's laws are still valid to a first approximation but that they otherwise must be totally replaced by Einstein's Relativity. This is definitely wrong. Newton's laws can be upgraded in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, making them perfectly correct and much simpler.

Henri Poincaré discovered that the laws of physical phenomena are the same for an observer at rest and for an observer moving at a constant speed, making it impossible to determine whether he is moving or not. He was well aware that this should be the starting point for some new mechanics.

From any observer's point of view, moving matter and all related phenomena undergo (or seem to undergo) the Lorentz transformations. A contraction occurs, the mass increases, the time there seems to slow down and the clocks do not indicate the same time on the displacement axis.

The goal is to take those phenomena into account in order to reformulate Newton's laws. For example, the mass gain is given by the gamma factor: gamma = 1 / sqr(1 – v^2 / c^2). Then kinetic energy, which is related to this gain, can easily be deduced from it. Finally, kinetic energy is not linked to Relativity any more; it is just a consequence of the Lorentz transformations. The formula below for kinetic energy is already well known and replaces Newton's inaccurate E = m v^2 / 2:

E = gamma * m – m

A simpler example is the action and reaction law. It will be still fully accurate if one postulates that the field of force, which is located between two material bodies and responsible for this, is considered at rest. Then there are no action and reaction any more, just two opposite and equal actions. Suppose that a billiard ball hits another one. The calculus becomes simpler if both balls are considered to be in motion. If their mass is the same, they will simply bounce back at the same speed according to the formula above. The final step is to recover the observer's frame of reference. This means that Newton's action and reaction law must be upgraded to a double opposite and equal action law, which is true only if the field of force, not the observer, is considered to be at rest.

Finally, the new mechanics initiated by Henri Poincaré is just an addenda to Newton's discoveries, while Einstein's Relativity proves to be complicated and unexplainable. It is also centered mainly and wrongly on gravity, while Newton's laws are simpler and involve the whole matter mechanics.

A Big Bang hypothesis is highly plausible because of the expanding universe, but actual descriptions of it appear quite imaginative, if not ridiculous.

The goal here is not to explain how the universe was created. This is beyond our knowledge, but we should ultimately be able to make an acceptable portrait of the situation in its very first moments. However, we definitely cannot succeed while most physical phenomena are still totally unexplained. The first question we should answer is: what is matter? So the past remains even more obscure as long as this question remains unanswered.

Obviously, the existence of an expanding aether would explain the expansion of very distant galaxies, whose speed is almost that of light. They may still be at rest with respect to the surrounding aether. Otherwise, because of the Lorentz transformations, they should be severely contracted in such a way that most of the universe matter would be concentrated near a sort of spherical "time wall". No matter could exist beyond this wall because it cannot reach the speed of light. In such a case, the Hubble constant could not really be constant, and so the theory of an expanding aether appears more acceptable.

What is matter? Well, matter is solely made out of electrons, which are spherical standing waves. Electrons and positrons can join together and transform into quarks, then into protons and neutrons. So, in the beginning of times, one can postulate that there was nothing but a very concentrated aether filled with waves. From a mechanical point of view, this appears quite possible.

This is a very alluring hypothesis because it is simple.

Most comments about this on the web are followed with the unavoidable "lol", which as far as I know means "Laugh out loudly".

However, it is a well known fact that most radio waves, and also X-rays and gamma are not stopped by matter. Because the light is


THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS ARE JUST A DOPPLER EFFECT

actually an exception, it would be simpler to postulate that all waves go freely through matter. Then, in order to explain why the light seems to be stopped, deviated or reflected, one can prove that electrons react to light and emit some new light whose phase is opposite.

Firstly, because of the opposite phase, this new light will interfere with the other one and produce a shade behind opaque objects.

Secondly, this new light will also produce a reflection in accordance with Huygens Principle.

An thirdly, because transparent material such as glass produces reflections through more than a full wavelength, their sum is null and the wave energy is transmitted from one electron to another. Then some new light is emitted on the other side. This phenomenon is possible only inside very homogenous substances.

The shade behind any opaque object can be calculated using Huygen's Principle:

This is the shade of a 1mm wire at 4 meters (about 13 feet).

This is possible if matter emits some new light whose phase is opposite.

Today, we can also use Mr. Delmotte's Virtual aether, which is a true laboratory for studying waves.

Here are the results below. The upper opaque screen simply stops the waves, and a shade appears. The lower one rather emits new waves whose phase is opposite. Surprisingly, the result is exactly the same. Both systems produce perfectly identical diffraction patterns.

Plane waves come from the left.

The upper opaque screen is 10 wavelengths high. It stops the waves and produces a shade.

The lower image rather shows a 10 wavelengths source emitting waves whose phase is opposite.

Surprisingly, the result is exactly the same.

This indicates that the light may propagate freely through matter.


The Time Scanner produces a Doppler effect on regular outgoing concentric waves.

This indicates that the electron, hence matter, should transform the way Lorentz predicted.

The Lorentz transformations were intended to correct the Doppler effect in order to make Maxwell's equations invariant in any moving frame or reference. Lorentz was strongly convinced that matter should contract. He was well aware that a time shift should occur, and also that clocks should tick slower.

Unfortunately, Lorentz's original equations do not yield correct results from this point of view. They rather indicate an expansion. They can be reversed, though, by swapping the x and x' variables:

x' = g * x + beta * t

t' = g * t – beta * x

Then they produce the correct results. So the program graphics (see below) use the reversed equations, and one can easily see that all happens the way Lorentz predicted.

Surprisingly, the same formulas also produce a special Doppler effect involving a slower frequency. Here is a program showing this:


I am of an opinion that Lorentz's Doppler equations should always be present together with his original ones, in order to justify the correct contraction and the time effects.

It should be emphasized that the Lorentz transformations are the greatest of all laws about matter's mechanical behavior, making Relativity much less important. After all, Relativity is just a secondary result, that is, the result of any moving observer's errors.

Now, Relativity can be verified.

These conclusions are not disputable. Since one century, physicists wrote tons of weird ideas about the Lorentz transformations. Please bear in mind that those transformations belong to Lorentz, who was a great scientist. They should be explained the way Lorentz did. But they are not. Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Isn't this a shame? Fortunately, it is likely to change because computers cannot handle so inane ideas. If you are a pro in computer programming, you surely can check this. You will finally admit that Lorentz was right about matter contraction.

My own program on the Lorentz transformations displays the x' and t' coordinates for a given beta normalized speed. One can use the cursors to modify beta, x and t. The program also displays a material body undergoing the transformations. There is no surprise: all happens the way Lorentz predicted.

Lorentz-Poincare-Doppler.bas Lorentz-Poincare-Doppler.exe

In addition, I invented a device which reproduces the Lorentz transformations in a mechanical way. I called it the Time Scanner.Surprisingly, besides the contraction and the time shift, this scanner also displays a Doppler effect:

You should doubt this.

This was Descartes' recommendation. You should be extremely careful analyzing any of my hypotheses. But, reciprocally, you should also doubt all pseudo-certitudes which are common today.

People are sometimes wrong. Whatever their number is, it is not relevant because everybody may blindly accept today's well


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | You are here. | 31 | 32 | 33 |

accepted ideas without verifying them. On the contrary, they may reject this web site without verifying it because it does not seem consistent with those ideas.

In brief, they never verify. They just memorize. Surprisingly, the lazy way is an effective one to obtain lucrative college and university degrees, but it is nevertheless the best one towards error.

For instance, most people very rapidly reject my discovery that the light is made of composite waves traveling through aether. This happens because of three superimposed errors. Firstly, they think that the light is made of photons. Secondly, they think that moving transverse magnetic and electric fields are involved because of Maxwell's equations. And thirdly, they think that the aether does not exist.

However, I know a lot about waves, and this web site proposes more and more flawless demonstrations. If you did not examine them, you are not entitled to reject them.

If you still believe that today's ideas are perfectly correct, then you are not a true scientist.

Gabriel LaFreniere





PROOFS AND EXPERIENCES

This is the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern generated by a moving linear emitter.

On the left hand side, the pattern is compressed only on the direction of motion (horizontal axis).

If the emitter is placed vertically, the pattern is still compressed horizontally according to Lorentz's predictions.

More recent experiences in favor of Lorentz's Relativity.

The above diagram is a flawless demonstration that Lorentz's contraction really occurs for optical phenomena. In spite of the Doppler effect, the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern proves to remain perfectly symmetric in such a way that motion cannot be detected. Those results are possible thanks to Mr. Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's virtual medium, which is a powerful laboratory. The results are not disputable because they can also be reproduced using true physical devices and true waves such as the sound waves. They are much easier to obtain using the computer, though.

The important point is that today's computers are amazingly fast and reliable. Especially, it becomes clear that Lorentz's Relativity, which is based on the existence of a preferred frame of reference (the aether) and on actual matter contraction, will replace Einstein's because it also explains matter mechanics. This will lead us well beyond a mere Relativity effect.

The more our skill is improving, the more we are capable of making experiences.

In addition, Lorentz's Relativity strongly suggests that matter is made of waves. The Wave Nature of Matter is on its way to be demonstrated.

The Michelson Interferometer.

More recently, we worked hard to obtain the best results from this virtual medium. A lot of annoying artifacts and anomalies were corrected. Now, our images are quite smooth and natural.

Below are several new improved video clips showing how light travels in the Michelson Interferometer. There is a choice of two velocities. Firstly, half of the speed of light or 0.5 c, and secondly, 0.7 c. Transverse waves are tilted to an angle which is given by: arc sin (v/c), that is 30° and 45°. This behavior proves to be highly consistent with the Lorentz Transformations. The interferometer contraction leads to a modified angle for the beam splitter, whose normal angle is 45° when the apparatus is stationary. Surprisingly, the new angle works fine and apparently, all seems to happen as though the interferometer was still at rest. Judge by yourself.



Spherical outgoing waves are reflected on a parabola in order to obtain transverse plane waves. They are tilted to a theta = arc sin (v/c) angle. Thus, they are traveling slightly frontward in such a way that the interferometer constantly follows them. Then the beam splitter produces two separate and orthogonal beams which are reflected back by the plane mirrors. The mirror on the right is nearer to the beam splitter than the upper one because of the contraction, and the beam reunification indicates that Lorentz's hypothesis (Larmor and FitzGerald also proposed it) was correct.

These images are also showing a very interesting optical effect: the beams are finally reunified by the beam splitter. Almost no light returns to the emitter. This occurs because the beam splitter does not really "reflect" the light beam. Matter on the transparent layer emits wavelets instead, whose phase is opposite. These wavelets cancel one half of the wave energy passing through it but their addition on a 90° angle produces a new wave front whose phase is lambda/4 shifted. This phenomenon is a confirmation that the light waves cannot be stopped by matter. Surprisingly, the shade behind matter is caused by wavelets whose phase is opposite. This is not really a surprise because radio waves, X-rays and gamma rays are not stopped by matter. Let's face it, most of the spectrum obeys this rule and the light is the exception. In addition, a metallic screen or wire (especially a parasite antenna) are well known to capture some of the energy and then emit such wavelets whose phase is opposite. According to their number and their distribution, they also produce a shade exhibiting a characteristic diffraction pattern. However, in this case, the beam splitter very thin reflecting layer is insufficient to cancel the whole energy passing through it.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_experiences.htm

Naturally, one should compare with what is going on when the interferometer is really at rest.

Michelson_Interferometer_Stationary.mkv

It is even more important to compare with what happens if the set does not undergo Lorentz's contraction. The video below shows that Michelson's calculus was correct - except for the contraction, which was quite unpredictable. This proves that Lorentz's idea was just great!

Michelson_Interferometer_No_Contraction.mkv

The codec is Mpeg-4 DivX 7 - DivX Plus (well established H-264/AAC) using Matroska files with .mkv extension. Matryoshka means "Russian dolls", as this system allows one to include a menu and many chapters, audio and subtitle choices, which could be useful here. Those files are significantly smaller for a given quality. I hope that the whole Internet will finally focus on them to get rid of all this mess about compatibility. Most of new DVD et Blu-ray players should easily play them, as well as Windows Media Player, Zoom Player, VLC Media Player, DivX Player, etc. If you still experience some difficulties, you may download (free, Zoom Player included) the whole nine yards from CCCP, which means Combined Community Codec Pack, not USSR!

I wrote and used the FreeBasic program below to produce the diagrams:

Michelson_Interferometer.bas

Decisive results.

By comparison, Special Relativity now appears frankly unreasonable. Those results are actually devastating for supporters of Einstein's Special Relativity. They were comfortably installed in their unexplainable certitude but those new facts (and more to come) are definitely waiting for new explanations.

Up to now, nobody seems to have clearly described this remarkable behavior. The good idea should be to reasonably explain the resulting appearance of Relativity without Einstein's absurdities. As a matter of fact, Lorentzian Relativity is still to be elaborated. Lorentz was definitely on the right track but he never went beyond a mere explanation of Bradley's and Michelson's unexpected results and, perhaps, a better description of the transformed particles. What's worse, Henri Poincaré and Einstein ruled out matter contraction and (almost) the aether itself. Fortunately, they were all quite sure that faster then light speeds were impossible. This is not what some supporters of Lorentz's Relativity wrongfully think.

Bradley's aberration of light.

I also tested successfully the Bradley aberration of light in a moving frame of reference. Then the emitted light waves are undergoing the Doppler effect. Once again, the results are perfectly compatible with the existence of the aether. The hard to detect aether wind was the main problem well before Michelson. Sir Airy, the famous astronomer, was strangely clinging to Fresnel's idea that the wind speed should be proportional to the refraction index for glass or water. His experience using a telescope filled up with water was still a failure. All those phenomena including Michelson's experiment and Bradley's aberration of light seemed totally unexplainable.

Considering the complexity of those phenomena and the lack of tools to check them, the 1900's mess is quite understandable. But I finally obtained flawless proofs that a moving observer always sees his environment as though he were perfectly stationary. Thanks to the virtual medium and my Time Scanner, I can easily demonstrate that apparently, all optical phenomena don't change in spite of the Doppler effect, through a now fully acceptable aether.

And once again, it is on condition that the emitter frequency really slows down and that Lorentz's contraction (especially that of an optical device such as a parabola) takes place only along the direction of motion. Those clips are especially revealing. They clearly show how curved waves undergoing the Doppler effect are reflected on a parabola. They are transformed into plane waves, but they become tilted to the theta angle = arc sin (v/c). Then they are reflected on a plane mirror in such a way that the interference pattern follows the phase wave, whose speed is 1/beta. All along this phase wave, Lorentz's t' "local time" does not change. Finally, the waves return to the parabola, which focuses them into a classical Airy Disk, albeit it is contracted and submitted to the same local time according to the phase wave. It turns out that Lorentz was right. It is a fact. It is undisputable...

Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.mkv

Bradley_Aberration_Plain_Stationary.mkv

The program is here : Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.bas

The frequency must slow down in order to cancel the transverse wavelength contraction along orthogonal axes y and z. Below, my goal was to show how parallax is still possible in the presence of motion, in spite of the Doppler effect. As a matter of fact, parallax was Bradley's original idea. Opticians know very well that off-axis images obtained by means of a parabolic mirror suffer from coma and astigmatism. They also suffer from spherical aberration if the object distance is finite. In spite of this, parallax detection is still possible. And once again, the parabola must contract to do this accurately. This even includes the distance between two of them!

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.5c.mkv

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Stationary.mkv

Program: Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.bas

This movie clip especially shows that the two focuses occur at different "local times", which are given by the phase wave and by Lorentz's time equation.

Relativity is not the point.


We need a practical theory in order to obtain more correct results. We especially have to deal with GPS satellites whose results could be even more accurate. Because the Doppler effect is definitely involved, the Lorentz Transformations cannot be neglected any more. The Doppler effect is present, it is easily measurable, and according to those new results the parabola must contract in order to reflect microwaves correctly. Here, speaking about space and time transformation is totally useless. It is rather a matter of true contraction and slower clocks. After all, only our measures on Earth are to be preferred; in this particular case we do not have to bother about local space and time. The satellite clocks must definitely indicate Standard Time, not their own slower time. One should avoid synchronizing them using radio signals transmitted from one to another because we know that this procedure ends up with a time shift. It is not a matter of Relativity, it is just a mechanical problem which can easily be solved thanks to the Lorentz transformations.

Surely, our Earth is not perfectly stationary with respect to the aether. However, one must firstly examine how those phenomena should occur if it was the case. The observer orbiting in a satellite is fully aware of his abnormal situation. Because he knows that his speed simply cannot be zero, he must admit that his emitter is sending waves which are undergoing the Doppler effect. He also knows that this effect is easily detectable on Earth, which is postulated to be stationary. And so, because is is still unable to detect the Doppler effect, his only remaining option is to reasonably explain why.

The best way to do that is by means of this fantastic virtual medium which I used to make the video clips available in this page. Scientists working on the GPS system are aware that C compilers are now very fast on a Pentium processor and that today's graphic cards work great. Large arrays of computers working in parallel and even supercomputers are available. Thus, one can experiment those effects in a fast, accurate and effective manner in a very large virtual medium. It is a genuine laboratory despite the fact that it handles virtual waves.

Explaining Relativity.

About Lorentz's contraction effects, Henri Poincare wrote (Electricity and Optics, 1901) :

"This strange property would truly seem a "helpful hand" from Nature to hide from our eyes the absolute motion of the Earth in spite of optical phenomena. This cannot satisfy me..."

Well, he was wrong. This "strange property" seems indeed a miracle (not to say a conspiracy considering the additional time shift and, thirdly, those slower clocks). It seemed so unlikely that this could occur that Lorentz finally abandoned his original hypothesis, which was still the only reasonable one.

But today, thanks to this new virtual medium, and also to my Time Scanner, it becomes obvious that the orbiting observer is unable to detect his motion. Firstly, the phase wave cancels the Doppler effect. And later, the same phase wave cancels the time shift. Surprisingly, both focal planes appear simultaneous and perfectly symmetrical during a given t' time. This happens because waves traveling backward are faster, so that the information only appears simultaneous. In addition, because he himself is contracted, the observer cannot detect the remaining contraction either.

Now, we can explain why the observer is fooled.

Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Scan.mkv

Program: Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Scan.bas

Seeing this, one must admit that the relative speed of light is slower forward than backward. The difference seems to cancel the Doppler effect, but there is still a Doppler effect. From this point of view, the Earth being the preferred frame of reference, the speed difference only, not the absolute speed, should be considered. It becomes clear that optical phenomena and even mechanical phenomena still appear identical in the satellite environment. Even length contraction is unnoticeable because the observer is also contracted. This is why the observer orbiting in the satellite is fooled. We found the cause.

Now, let's examine the Bradley aberration of light.

Bradley's goal was to measure the distance to the nearest stars by detecting a parallax effect. The Earth's orbit proved to be a bit too small to do this, but Bradley unexpectedly discovered a different phenomenon. Because the speed of the Earth around the Sun is about 29 km/s, the telescope motion produces a small but measurable focus offset. Bradley soon realized that this effect was a consequence of the speed of light.

Our virtual medium can easily show this. It is quite impossible to set the emitter (which represents a star) several light years away, but a large parabola produces the equivalent plane waves. Then let's add two small parabolas (Bradley's telescope) moving in opposite directions the way they would do around the Sun at 6-month intervals. In this first experience, the Sun is postulated to be perfectly stationary and the telescope speed is exaggerated to 1/3 of the speed of light in order to obtain a more dramatic effect.

Bradley_Aberration_Stationary.mkv

Program: Bradley_Aberration_Stationary.bas

No surprise here: the Airy disk pattern reaches the point where the parabola optical axis was previously. This result is quite simple and understandable. It was a good idea to firstly show what is normally going on, though, because the two parabolas and the wave patterns no longer remain symmetric if the Sun is moving. Today, we know very well that the Sun is orbiting around the galaxy center even faster then the Earth does around the Sun.

The point is: Bradley did obtain a perfect symmetry. Such a result seemed to indicate that the sun is perfectly stationary with respect to the aether. Surely, the sun motion should rather introduce a severe asymmetry. Here, let's suppose that the Sun is moving at about one half of the speed of light. When both the Sun and the Earth are moving in the same direction, the speed of the Earth is accelerated to .5 + .33 = .83 c. Otherwise, it is rather slowed down to .5 - .33 = .23 c. So the Earth and the parabolas must periodically contract in accordance with Lorentz's shrinking factor. However, in order to reproduce the same 1/3 c velocity as above, as seen by the moving observer, one must refer to Poincare's law of speed addition, which is given by:



It turns out that the slowest and fastest composite speed should be .2 and .7143 c. Then the contraction difference is severe: 98% vs. 70%. Obtaining a symmetric result using those differently contracted parabolas now appears unlikely to be possible, especially in the presence of the additional Doppler effect. Poincare's 1901 theory ("optical phenomena are relative") was attractive because it was much simpler and apparently correct. I am quite sure that Lorentz did figure out such a scenario because Bradley and Michelson had severely damaged Newton's system. He had to abandon his hypothesis, for he was a great scientist. It simply could not work.

Bradley_Aberration.5c.mkv

Program: Bradley_Aberration.5c.bas

But surprisingly, the video below shows that it does work! Using my Time Scanner, which transforms a Doppler distorted environment the way a moving observer should see it, it becomes obvious that a perfect symmetry is still possible.

Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.mkv

Program: Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.bas

This is certainly the most amazing phenomenon ever. I did not doubt that when I initiated the video series because I know a lot about the Lorentz transformations and the Doppler effect. Writing so complicated programs was not a piece of cake, but I finally succeeded in showing that Lorentz's theory definitely works great!

Lorentz's triumph is now complete. No doubt, this is the ultimate experiment. In the future, it will be repeated and improved to a high degree of perfection, and it will always yield the same fantastic results.

Lorentzian Relativity.

This leads to Lorentz's Relativity. Consequently, Special Relativity is deadly wounded. Einstein's version (actually that of Poincare) was indeed attractive because it yielded correct predictions. No doubt, it was valuable, but now we need to know why all this is possible. We need to know how matter works. The basic principle is that any moving system still mechanically works perfectly on condition that those strange effects take place. Because of them, the moving observer cannot be aware of his motion any more. He still see things in his environment as though he were perfectly at rest.

So it was important to elaborate the correct equation set for this, as Lorentz's purpose was rather to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations in a moving frame of reference. Surprisingly, Lorentz's x' and t' variables applied to the stationary system. This is weird. Knowing this, I just swapped them and easily obtained the equation set below many years ago:

The Lorentz Transformations.

This modified set is fully consistent with Lorentz's point of view.

Let's make things perfectly clear: Lorentzian Relativity simply cannot be explained without those equations. They must be adopted by any scientist who is interested in Lorentz's works, even though Lorentz neglected to put them down this way. Secondly, I demonstrated a long time ago that those equations also produce Lorentz's slower Doppler effect. In this case, x variables stand for axial distances in wavelengths and t variables stand for the wave period, hence in 2*pi units. And thirdly, this is highly consistent with my Time Scanner. Three independent and spectacular confirmations of the same facts cannot be a coincidence. The Lorentz Transformations are definitely a law of nature, and they are all about matter mechanics. Clearly, they will lead us well beyond Relativity.

Fortunately, in this form, Lorentz's equations become quite easy to understand. One must bear in mind that all x and x' variables stand for absolute distances in light seconds, so that c = 1. On the contrary, while only t variables stand for absolute seconds, Lorentz carefully explained that t' variables do not indicate the "true time". They only indicate slower seconds that clocks in this moving frame of reference should display. Suppose that velocity is 50% of the speed of light, hence beta = 0.5 and Lorentz's contraction factor is: g = 0.866. And finally, x = 1 and a one second delay (t = 1) occurred.

1. g * x means that matter and distances contract to 86.6% of their original length along the direction of motion in accordance with Lorentz's contraction factor.

2. beta * t means that matter simply moves to x' = 0.5 * 1 = 0.5 light second after a one second delay according to its speed. This is Galileo's Relativity Principle. However, because the coordinate was shifted to x'=0.866 after the contraction occurred, the final x' position is 0.866+0.5= 1.366 light second.

3. g * t means that moving clocks tick 86.6% slower, once again according to Lorentz's contraction factor. More exactly, the electron frequency and that of any cyclic mechanical process slows down. This is why the transverse wavelength, hence transverse distances, remains constant according to Lorentz's y'=y; z'=z.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | You are here. | 32 | 33 |

4. –beta * x means that a clock whose original position was x = 1 (but whose position is currently x' =1.366 light second) indicates minus 0.5 second as compared to another clock whose original position was x = 0 (but whose position is currently x' =0.5 light second).

This time shift is important because, in this frame of reference, the relative speed of light is three times faster backward (1+beta=1.5) than forward (1–beta=0.5). As a consequence, and additionally because the contraction is unnoticeable as well, the clock synchronization procedure using light or radio signals perfectly matches this anomaly. It should be emphasized that this is not only a mere time shift. Cause and effect relationships are undergoing the same Doppler distortion, simply because causes are transmitted by waves. Thus, speaking about space and time transformation is meaningless and useless. One should rather consider that this appearance of simultaneity leads to an amazing but understandable mystification: the moving observer cannot detect his true speed through the aether any more.

This time shift can also be cross-checked by means of the phase wave, where Lorentz's t' time remains the same. It is where transverse waves incoming from opposite directions meet, given the fact that they are tilted to an angle which is given by: arc sin (v/c). The result is a scissor effect. Because of this constant but "moving" t' time, two observers A and B placed on the displacement axis will think that the wave front crosses this axis at the same time. So it will seem parallel to it, not tilted. I invented my Time Scanner thanks to this phenomenon. The phase wave is well visible in the Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.5c.mkv clip above. In any event, I made another video clip in order to show this in a more dramatic manner. It shows how waves behave in a moving confocal and symmetric twin-parabola system, which is a very rarely shown in optical or radio apparatus. Here, the phase wave is visible two times, firstly for plane but tilted waves, then for moving circular standing waves (please observe that they look very much like my moving electron, but in 2-D only).

Phase_Wave.mkv

FreeBasic program: Phase_Wave.bas

Poincare's Relativity Postulate.

So, let's return to the very beginning of this story. In 1904, Henri Poincaré made a lecture to the International Congress of Arts and Science in St-Louis, Missouri, USA. No doubt that Albert Einstein was well aware of what he said:

"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation, so that we have not or cannot have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a

motion."

This site is very popular and it becomes more and more discussed. Thanks to my efforts, things are about to change. A lot of new sites whose subject is "Lorentzian Relativity" (check Google) are available. This is quite a revolution. Thus, if one still prefers to rely on Einstein's weird principles and paradoxes, making all those new results still compatible with his version of the theory will soon become unsustainable.

I admit that Einstein's predictions are correct (clearly, Relativity is true), but his interpretation of what is really going on is not.

Those are flawless proofs that actually, in the presence of motion, optical phenomena remain surprisingly natural and consistent on condition that the Lorentz Transformations apply to matter the same way the Doppler effect applies to waves responsible for matter mechanics. That is why the observer "cannot have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried

along in such a motion".

The point is: most certainly, the observer is moving, and matter does contract. We are now aware that this phenomena is possible in the presence of the aether. On the contrary, nobody ever explained how such a wonder could be possible without the aether. Let's face it: the idea that one's motion with respect to another material body is purely relative was attractive, partly because its basic principles were simple, and obviously because its predictions were correct. Unfortunately, it must be rejected because it is unreasonable and misleading. It is a severe obstacle to understanding things. In physics, even a correct prediction is unsatisfactory. The

ultimate goal is to explain things.

Gabriel LaFreniere



HUYGENS' PRINCIPLE

This animated diagram was generated by a FreeBasic program using solely the Huygens Principle.

The pixel gray shade is simply the sum of all Huygens' wavelets incoming from the internal surface of a hemisphere.

It is the equivalent, yet much simpler alternative to Fresnel's differential and integral calculus.

This is a translation of the Huygens Principle from his "Traité de la Lumière" book.

Here, the next wave front is the sum of identical wavelets created on the previous wave front.

However, the wavelet summation yields correct results everywhere on condition that phase is taken into account.

We may consider that all the points attained simultaneously by the wave are the centers of wavelets reinforcing on their common envelope: the

main wave. The wave energy is only significant there.

A reliable method.

The Huygens' Principle is a powerful method for studying optical phenomena. Although we recently demonstrated that Mr. Philippe Delmotte's virtual medium is even better and faster, it is still highly useful because it is amazingly reliable. Actually, I never encountered a situation where it did not hold true.

Fresnel's Principle is supposedly more accurate, but I am not well convinced of this because Fresnel abandoned the famous "wavelets". I am of an opinion that the wavelet hypothesis remains highly relevant on condition that the phase is considered. Then the radius of curvature does not need to be equal for all wavelets any more. In addition, this upgraded version clearly shows that a wave cannot transmit energy backward.

http://glafreniere.com/sa_Huygens.htm

This is how the light is reflected on a mirror for a 45° angle.

The reflection angle is consistent with experiments whatever the mirror angle.

Please note that all wavelets are generating a second wave front across the mirror.

However, on condition that their phase is opposite, this will cancel the incoming wave front and produce a shade.

This is how the light is deviated on a plane transparent material such as glass.

The light beam is deviated because the wavelet speed is slower inside transparent material.

The reflection is very faint. The wavelet summation is almost zero because they are created inside a rather deep area.

Regular traveling waves cannot travel backward.

The wavelets are well separated forward but they cancel backward.

THE PHASE IS OPPOSITE FOR WAVELETS EMITTED BY ELECTRONS

Refraction.

The Huygens Principle should also be worded in order to take the wave velocity into account. The speed of light becomes slower after entering a transparent substance such as gas, water or glass. Then the wavelet speed should also be slower, and the result is refraction as shown below.

Negative wavelets.

The original Huygens Principle does not clearly account for the wave direction. The important point is that the wavelet phase must be considered. However, the diagram below shows that additional negative wavelets easily solve this problem. The use of black and white wavelets proves to be preferable.

It is a well known fact that the light phase is pi shifted when it is reflected on a mirror. It is also the case for radio waves. So the


The mirror produces a shade because the wavelet phase is opposite behind the mirror.

There is a shade behind any object for the same reason.

Huygens' black and white wavelets also explain standing waves.

However, this demonstration is not very convincing.

Fortunately, the wavelet summation by means of a computer is much more accurate.

THE ALTERNATIVE "INTEGRAL" CALCULUS

Huygens principle should be modified again in order to obtain such a phase shift.

This is especially interesting because the wavelet phase is also shifted behind the mirror. Then the phase as compared to that of the incoming wave front is also shifted and the wavelet addition is zero. I already demonstrated that the light is never stopped by any material body. It goes freely through it, but electrons on its surface are emitting wavelets whose phase is opposite.

This is why there is a shade behind objects. It is not because objects are stopping the light.

Standing waves.

The black and white wavelet method also solves the standing wave phenomenon:

Huygens could not specify how many wavelets are needed in order to produce accurate results. An infinite number according to Newton's or Leibniz's original differential calculus is obviously unfeasible in the case of a computer program.

Samples.

Actually, a limited number of wavelet samples (about 1000) most often yield fairly good results, albeit one may occasionally prefer using more in order to be sure. This is not a problem because today's computers are very fast. As soon as the calculus for one wavelet only is correct, the summation for them all is done in seconds.

The wavelet calculus.

So the first step is to scan pixels in the whole wave area and establish the wave diagram for one wavelet only.


The normal wave energy for just one wavelet without the pi phase shift.

This is a more accurate wavelet according to Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's formula for the electron.

The results are consistent with the fact that the phase is opposite for reflected light or radio waves.

Then one may add a second wavelet.

It is just a matter of addition because wavelets may add constructively or destructively.

The wave generator.

The above diagram is easily obtainable thanks to Mr. Jocelyn Marcotte's equations. Below is a program showing this.

Marcotte_Wave_Generator.bas Marcotte_Wave_Generator.exe

Marcotte_Wave_Generator_3D.bas Marcotte_Wave_Generator_3D.exe


This diagram rather shows energy, which is the square of amplitude.

Energy is always positive and it is not submitted to the wave phase.

This is a mix of amplitude and energy.

This is the well known Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.

It can easily be obtained thanks to the addition of 1000 wavelets regularly spaced on a flat circular surface (see below).

This diagram also shows why the pinhole camera (D = diameter) cannot produce acceptable images for distances L nearer than:

L = D ^ 2 / 2.44 * lambda


The wavelet centers must imperatively be regularly spaced on a circular surface.

This is the Airy disk longitudinal diagram for a very wide aperture (about f/ 1).

Here, the emitting surface is rather spherical.

The Airy disk is actually an elongated ellipsoid as seen in a 3-D space.

And finally, here is an artificial 3-D view and a flat view of the cross section.

The Airy disk is perfect only at the focal point.

Those diagrams were computed thanks to the Huygens Principle without any differential or integral calculus.


| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | You are here. | 33 |

Gabriel LaFreniere





CONCLUSION

The Balmer series is obviously linked to the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.

We must admit to the obvious: MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES

THE END

This site is exhaustive enough so far and it is updated regularly. Because I have been putting up with general indifference for more than ten years, I must pursue research alone. It would be much easier as a team, with specialists in waves, magnetic fields, nuclear physics, etc. It would also be interesting to verify mechanical effects on standing waves through laboratory experiments.

The quark subject being under study, I will certainly, one day, succeed in writing a passably good description of protons and neutrons. I might be on the verge of making a surprising discovery that would have eluded scientists. But for now, it seems that all the properties of matter have already been discovered and recorded.

For instance, the link between the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern and the Balmer series is obvious. This strongly suggests that, instead of dealing with Planck's constant (it is rather the Fresnel number), the more probable cause of the spectral lines is the electron static position inside any of the white zones shown above, which may be low-radiation zones as well.

These ideas originated years ago.

For the most part, the ideas contained in these pages have existed well before the year 2000. It is mainly because of hypothetic photons that it took so long to bear fruit. The efforts needed to escape such a swamp are unimaginable. Those photons were incompatible with the theory, which was named the Theory of Absolute to counter the theory of Relativity. In a certain measure, it is Lorentz's unfinished and unwritten theory. These ideas are of course protected by copyright :

La Théorie de l'Absolu, © (The Theory of Absolute) - Luc Lafrenière, may 2000

La Matière est faite d'Ondes, © (Matter is Made of Waves) - Gabriel Lafrenière, june 2002.

In conclusion.

It is obviously a major discovery. We could have feared a resulting Apocalypse, for example some kind of "gravity bomb". But not at all. Fire will still burn the same way it always did.

Anyone knowledgeable in standing waves could rapidly reach the same conclusions. The wave forming the electron turned out to be surprisingly simple. Starting from there, everything falls into place. Everything can be explained. There are never any anomalies. Never any exceptions. Complex equations are not necessary, and Euclid's geometry is sufficient. We are very far from the decidedly weird ideas of General Relativity.

It is possible that I am mistaken. On your part, if your intelligence allows you to doubt all this, it also demands you verify it. I would challenge you to firstly examine my Time Scanner, which is certainly the best tool in order to understand well the Doppler effect, then the Lorentz transformations, and finally, Relativity. If you still do not admit that this device is fantastic, forget about all the rest.

You cannot rightfully reject this hypothesis without having first studied it. You cannot rightfully pontificate on the unknown from the height of your university studies or overly vast experience.

Let me remind you that most phenomena mentioned here are as yet unexplained. So you should look for plausible hypotheses, and in my judgment this one is especially interesting because it is simple.

Imagine: just electrons!

http://glafreniere.com/sa_conclusion.htm

| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | You are here.

Gabriel LaFreniere




La Théorie de l'Absolu (The Theory of Absolute), © Luc Lafrenière, May 2000.

La Matière est faite d'Ondes (Matter is Made of Waves), © Gabriel Lafrenière, June 2002.


The electron

Ivanov's Waves


The Doppler Effect

The Aether



The Time Scanner





The Wave Mechanics


Nuclear Forces


Kinetic Energy

Fields of Force


Magnetic Fields

Gravity

Light

Quarks

Protons

Atoms

Chemistry

The Wave Theory



Errors to Correct



Conclusion

http://glafreniere.com/sa_conclusion.htm

matter is made of waves

Education

e ej e j ejjoo e

ete t e t

t tt tj e ee eeej ej

je ee jj j

ettte ee ett

zzoe te

tttee eee