Is it Time for the Overthrow of Einstein?
Experiments of Michelson-Morley and Sagnac have demonstrated that there is wind Aether. Michelson-Morley ‘s experiment did not produce the expected results. There was a slight error in the experiment. That is because we misunderstand Aether.
I introduce you to a new thought on this which may enable us to understand everything more easily and properly with reality… through which Fizeau experiments… can be explained but not a motionless formula like Fresnel. From that, I have then calculated the size of the universe.
Aether field
The electric field, the magnetic field and the gravitational field are only capable of applying force in a certain direction. For example, gravity has only one direction towards the center of the object.
Aether field acts in three-dimensional space. It has the ability to exert force in all directions.
The recipe: M/R2 and M/R4 has been tried. But unfortunately it does not fit, and we’ll talk about it later.
Basically, objects always want to remain motionless relative to the Aether. When it moves, it wants Aether to move with it. When it turns, it also wants Aether to spin with it (Just like the Earth drags the atmosphere). If Aether moves at a speed of V compared to an object, the object will give Aether a force of:
This force is in the same direction but opposite to V. The work of this force is zero because Aether has zero mass. This force is a very special force that should not be understood as normal forces. It was like a diplomatic negotiation (not military) to achieve a goal.
If there are many objects that pull Aether at a point in space, the speed of Aether at that point is determined by the equation:
F1 + F2 + .. + Fn = 0
we can ignore it.
Atomic clocks at sea level everywhere on the earth are very stable. Atomic clocks at high altitudes are affected by Aether winds and so they are no longer accurate.
The Doppler effect in acoustics indicates that: If the distance between the source and receiver does not change, the frequency of the wave does not change (Whether the source and receiver move at very high speeds in the air.). But there was a problem that everyone didn’t notice and that was: wave energy changed.
The energy of sound waves is the kinetic energy of air molecules. it relates to the formula:
The person at the end of the wind source heard very clearly the person at the top of the wind source. But the person at the top of the wind source did not hear what the person at the end of the wind source said. The frequency of sound waves does not change but only the energy of the sound waves is changed.
Light is like sound. When Aether winds are present, the energy of the light waves also changes. The energy of the revenue source changes and it is easy to make a false statement: the frequency of light changes.
Aether winds alter the energy of light waves and lead to misunderstandings in the experiment of Rebound Pound:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Experiment
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
The frequency of light waves does not change, but the light wave energy has changed because the relative speed between the source and receiver is not equal to the speed of light C, but rather: C ± V. This is evidence that there has been an “Aether wind” in the experiment.
Michelson-Morley:
https://digilander.libero.it/VNereo/r-a-monti-theory-of-relativity-a-critical-analysis.pdf . website has comments :
“Morley and Miller pointed out that the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment did not have the anticipated magnitude, but the indicated effect was not zero. Moreover, Michelson and Morley made only one series of observations, in July 1887, and never repeated the ether drift experiment at any other time, notwithstanding many printed statements to the contrary.(52)
Consequently, at the International Congress for Physics held in Paris in connection with the International Exposition of 1900, Lord Kelvin strongly urged the repetition of the ether drift experiment with a more powerful apparatus. Morley and Miller decided to repeat the experiment from 1902 to 1905 . The conclusion, at the end of 1905, was the following:
The observations showed a very definite positive effect slightly larger than previously obtained, but still too small to be reconciled with the expectation, The velocity of relative motion of the Earth and ether obtained from the observations made in 1905 is 8.7 ± 0.6 km/s … . Since the Theory of Relativity postulates an exact null effect from the ether drift experiment which had never been obtained in fact, the writer [ Miller ] felt impelled to repeat the experiment in order to secure a definitive result.(52)
As we shall see, Miller repeated the experiment from 1921 to 1926 .”
Calculate the intensity of the Aether field on the ground: (in the experiment of Joos)
The intensity of the Aether field of the earth at Jena: (143 m higher than sea level)
Explain the experiment Fizeau
Water molecules in motion also pull Aether moving according to it. But it is pulled back by the force of the earth and the universe and we have:
I also thought that Aether was made up of electric and magnetic fields and the formula would be:
If this result is deduced, then the earth must pull the absolute aether according to it. This does not happen and so I removed it.
Explaining the experiment fizeau
Water molecules when motion also pulls Aether moving according to it. But it is pulled back by the force of the earth and the universe and we have:
When the light goes in the liquid (standing still), it goes at the speed: V0 = C/n in the interval: t = S / V0 = nS/C . Time interval t is divided into two phases:
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
“……objects always want to remain stationary relative to the Aether.”
This is wrong. Objects always want to remain stationary, or in a straight line with constant velocity, relative to the Aether.
In other words, objects always want to keep their energy (KE) constant. A change in energy requires a force, or an energy input.
Reply
dung
| #
Thank you for your comments.
perhaps there was a mistake here:
Gravity field has no energy. Only objects are energetic.
The magnetic field has no energy. Only objects are energetic.
The electric field has no energy. Only electric charges have energy.
The Aether field has no energy. Only light waves have energy.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi John O’,
Did you title Dung Pham’s article or was this Dung Pham’s proposed title? Einstein is claimed to have stated: “If you can’t explain if simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Einstein proposed a very simple thought experiment about observation; from which E= mc^2 simply resulted. From the beginning there is nothing simple about Dung Pham’s article.
The reason for my question is I am aware that you do exercise your right as an editor to change a proposed title. And I am also aware there seem to many authors who now believe they are ‘more intelligent’ than Einstein or Newton, who, many agree, contributed greatly to laying the foundation of what we call physics (natural physical science). So, my question is to determine if Dung Pham, by his own title, is one of the latter?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
If you believe Einstein’s general theory of relativity is simple you haven’t looked at the expanded version.
E= mc^2 was not an Einstein creation. The originator of the formula concluded the formula was wrong when the energy from radioactive decay contradicted the formula, instead of creating the neutrino to explain the discrepancy and retain the formula.
Your adoration of past experts attributes great intelligence to them that is unjustified. People who believe that Einstein was wrong do not believe in their superior intelligence they just don’t suffer from your delusion of their super intelligence. It is inevitable that all experts will be found to be wrong as more knowledge is acquired. Your denial of this shows that you believe science is a religion not an ongoing process.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“If you believe Einstein’s general theory of relativity is simple you haven’t looked at the expanded version.” (Herb)
I was not referring to Einstein’s general theory of relativity; was I? “The originator of the formula” (Herb) Who was this originator of E= mc^2 if it was not Einstein? How did this unknown (to me) originator arrive at this formula? In gradate school I took courses in Advanced Physical Chemistry and Atomic and Nuclear Physicists. Of course, I have read that there are some who believe what I was taught and learned by solving for E= mc^2, as Einstein described he had, was nonsense. No, the mathematics involved in this problem is so straightforward that even I, a chemist, could do it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Hasendhrl and de Pettro derived the formula a year and a half before Einstein. (look up originator of E=mc^2 on google)
You say Einstein maintained that if you couldn’t explain something simply you don’t understand it. My reference to general relativity was that Einstein abandoned this principle in order to try to include gravity in his theory.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Tony Rothmunn also wrote: This is a vast oversimplification. Einstein was neither the first person to consider the equivalence of mass and energy, nor did he actually prove it. ”
Einstein was a scientist and knew that as a scientist he could not prove anything to be true. Einstein is claimed to have stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” So as a scientist, he recognized that a single, reproducible, result could prove his idea to be wrong.
This is the fundamental difference between the philosophers of science and an actual scientist. The philosopher clings to the idea that the foundation of their science is their intelligence and logic and the scientist considers the foundation of their science is observation (experimental results).
As Einstein is also considered to have stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it just that I stay with problems longer.”
But, thank you for informing me that are at least two, no four, who believe their approach to science was (is?) better than Einstein’s. Too bad Hasendhrl and de Pettro have not been better recognized by their scientific community for their achievement.
Have a good day, Jerry
dung
| #
Hi Jerry Krause
It is I (dung phạm) who wrote that title.
I am not a smart person and very afraid of smart people. smart people like the guy is in love.For them she is the most beautiful.They often use their personal views to decide things.
I am a pragmatist. I respect reality. I respect the results of experiments that people have to work hard to get. even if it is not what you want, you must respect it.
Enstein’s theory may be very beautiful in your eyes. but if it can’t explain the Fizeau experiment, it’s time to say: remove it
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Dung Pham,
You state: “I am a pragmatist.” I ask: What experiments have you performed? I have weighed (massed) hundreds, if not a thousand or more, of screw capped small vials to a reproducible mass of no more than 3 millionths of a gram to achieve a precision of a result that did not look like a shotgun pattern. In fact one could draw a smooth curve touching the points with a reasonable, minimum breadth. One could never touch a vial, a cap, or the balance with anything but a special forceps.
Einstein was not trying to explain anything with his simple thought experiment. He clearly stated his assumptions: nothing is instantaneous and the speed of light is a constant at a first approximation. Both observers were observing the experiment (the dropping of a body) from a perpendicular position to the motion of the falling body, which fell very quickly a little distance. This so, the influence of the air upon its fall could be ignored. And I believe the influence of moving air was ignored or it was assumed the air was moving with the railroad car.
It was more than 50 years ago when I could understand each step of Einstein’s mathematical analyst of the precisely defined problem. And it was quite clear to me and the other students in my class that Einstein proposed the problem with no idea of what the result might be. So the next step, when the second observer fell with the body being dropped, proved to be more difficult to mathematically analyze. Maybe I am wrong about this because I am not a physicist and I seldom ever was an A student in physics.
I only commented about what you wrote because it seems you, like too many others, want to tear down the achievements of those scientists, who gave the world freedom for a little while longer, as they designed the bomb with their quantum mechanical understanding that makes no logical sense except that it works.
E = mc^2 was a prediction (I do not consider it a theory) which was the result of a carefully defined, simple, thought experiment which was only trying to find out what might be expected.
Just as I believe that Schordenger had no idea what the result would be by treating the electron of a hydrogen atom with the ‘wave equation’ as if the electron was not a particle but a wave (photon?).
So I do not understand how you can conclude that a 1851 experimental result (which even the experimenter questions the validity of its ‘claimed’ result) should be a reason to remove one of Einstein’s contributions to modern physical science.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The rotation of the Earth does not drag the atmosphere with it. The atmosphere rotates faster than the Earth, which was shown when the radioactive clouds from atmospheric nuclear test orbited the Earth moving east.
Mass has nothing to do with light other than objects radiating their magnetic (energy) and electric fields. These fields combine to form larger fields in which light travels. Light is a disturbance traveling in these fields. A change in the strength an electric field will produce a change in the magnetic (energy) field which will produce a change in the electric field. Since the strength of these fields decrease with distance from the object the disturbance will travel slower the further it is from the object. In water light will travel faster than in air just as sound travels faster in water. The speed light is not constant but varies with the strength of the fields. The speed of light will slow with distance from the sun until it enters the Earth’s fields where its velocity will increase. This is what causes the red and blue shift of light from distant stars.
Einstein was wrong with his unjustified creation of the photon. The photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect where the distortion of a crystal causes a current to flow. His assertion that the speed of light is constant is totally unsupported by evidence.
Reply
Dave Narby
| #
Light travels faster in air than in water, and faster in a vacuum than in air.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dave,
What evidence do you have to support this contention? DR. Nimitz performed a repeatable experiment showing an electromagnetic wave traveling faster through a solid than through air. The response was the creation of the tunneling photon and other excuses to maintain Einstein’s unsupported assertion. As an electromagnetic wave the speed of light is determined by the strength of the electric and magnetic fields it travels in, hence the red and blue shift in the light from distant stars.
Herb
Reply
Dave Narby
| #
Hi Dung,
I suspect you are onto something here, thanks for your efforts. I don’t really understand what you’ve written here yet, hopefully it will become clearer on re-reading.
Please keep working on this so we might understand it better, and don’t let the critics get you down. It’s apparent they don’t really understand you yet either.
Reply
Roslyn Ross
| #
Einstein certainly provided valuable input to the progress of scientific theory and development, but, he was not such a genius as claimed and indeed, only one amongst quite a few who demonstrated brilliance in his times.
Einstein has been given all the glory when it was not deserved. But such is life and such is often the way of it in science.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Roslyn,
As I ponder your comment, I wonder if you know (understand) the definition of the word: respect. You are certainly correct when you wrote that he was “only one amongst quite a few who demonstrated brilliance in his time.” Einstein maybe would disagree with your use of the word: brilliance. For he was a humble man as indicated by the quote I had previously reviewed: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it just that I stay with problems longer.” These notable physicists to whom you referred were forced by experimental results to turn their attentions to the small particles (atoms) and then to the composition of the atom And they discovered they could not explain these results with the classical physics of much larger bodies.
But these ‘modern’ physicists clearly respected each others’ contributions to this new science. Something, respect, you (people whose names are unfamiliar to me) seem unwilling to give to Einstein and others of that time. I respect these scientists of the past because they recognized that science was not about logic or rational thought, it was only about reproducible observations (experimental results).
Dung Pham wants to throw away Einstein’s E = mc^2 because he claims if “it can’t explain the Fizeau experiment, it’s time to say: remove it” This after he has reviewed that Fizeau doubted the validity of his 1851 about which I reviewed and found that even Fizeau had doubts about the experiments results. Newton wrote that he did not know the cause of gravity (explain it?), but he knew that the law of universal gravity could explain the motions of the planets and of the seas (tides). I except this second claim even though I know there are observed tides which are only diurnal and not semi-diurnal tides (which Newton explained how gravity could cause.)
We need to show respect for the many scientists who followed Galileo’s lead and have given us the modern world which had not existed for the thousands of years before this. Often I read that some question the intelligence of prehistoric people, but we are evidence that they did survive in very hostile environments which most moderns, without many practical experiences, could not survive today. They even populated isolated tiny islands, which somehow had sufficient sources of ‘fresh’ water, in the midst of ‘big’ oceans.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Reply
jerry krause
| #
As usual, I didn’t carefully proofread. But anyone who finds reasons to not respect the contributions of Einstein, must be intelligent enough to correct my mistakes.
Reply