Light Transmission in Aether

Blog 20140430

Hello Mr. Borchardt,

I have a question with regard to your aether theory and how you would explain transverse light waves in the gaseous/liquid medium of aether. As I have come to understand from certain objectors to aethereal theory, the polarization of light, and their conclusion that it must be a transverse wave, is one of their claims to the impossibility of aether being the medium of a light wave. My question is: Can you explain how light in your ether can be a transverse wave, or do you have a different theory of what "polarized" light is where a  compression wave can also explain it?

I came to wonder about this thanks to Ionel Dinu (another NPA member) bringing it up years ago in an NPA video conference, saying that the question of the polarization of light was important for aether theories to address. I am aware that Ionel Dinu has done some theoretical thinking on this problem, and that apparently there are experiments that are putting the transverse conclusion into question:

[GB: Thanks for a question that has bedeviled aether theorists for more than a century. I do not think there is any doubt that light is a transverse (T) (shear) wave and that it is not a longitudinal (L) (compression) wave. For physics beginners: An L wave compresses and decompresses the medium in the direction of travel. A T wave compresses and decompresses the medium in all directions perpendicular to the direction of travel. The fact that we can polarize light proves that it is a T wave, despite some desperation on the part of other aether theorists. As you know, gases and liquids only have L waves. Only solids have T waves in addition to L waves. This makes aether a strange beast, with none of the transmission properties of gases and only one of the properties of solids. Dinu’s evidence for L waves does not seem convincing. There may be some, but it seems insignificant, and simply may be a result of imperfections in the apparatus. Of course, we should not necessarily expect aether to behave exactly like baryonic (ordinary) matter.

On the other hand, the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) teaches us that aether particles will have some of the characteristics of other microcosms. As we showed in “Universal Cycle Theory,” one of the most prevalent structural forms in the universe is the vortex. Obvious examples are the Milky Way, the solar system, Saturn, and the hydrogen atom. Back in 2009, I used vortex theory to speculate about the structure of the electron and positron.[1] Thus, it is likely that aether-1 particles are vortices formed from aether-2 particles. Vortices form disc-like shapes as rotation rates increase (Figure 1). If this speculation is correct, then it appears unlikely that a medium filled with these aether discs would produce much compression and rarefaction in the direction of travel. Head-on collisions between disc edges would be rare, giving way to motion perpendicular to the direction of travel. L waves would be insignificant, while T waves would dominate.

Figure 1. Do aether particles look like this?

{The Sombrero Galaxy (M104) Credit: HST/NASA/ESA.}] 

The following isn't part of the question, just some thoughts and things you might find of interest.

Also, I have come upon another aether theorist by chance but I find his work interesting. Mr. Distinti is an electrical engineer who is using a dipole aether model to deal with the transverse wave problem, but his use of mathematics for his models are impressive and add much strength to conceptual theory. Perhaps you may find some interesting things in his work that may aid you in yours:

I thank you for any response you can give.

Sincerely, a student of univironmental determinism 
[GB: Thanks for the link. Distinti has some interesting ideas. I like his demand for a mechanical cause for activities that regressive physicists shrug off as a kind of magic. He realizes that baryonic matter must form from aether-like particles and that Standard Particle Theory is mostly working with what he calls “junk” (I have called it “rubble”) from accelerators. On the other hand, like most dissidents, he does not get everything right. For example, he apparently believes that energy exists and that time dilation is possible. Being an electrical engineer, he takes charge and electrostatic attraction for granted, never explaining what they are. His videos are a work in progress, needing a good reorganizing effort.]

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of  E=mc2 ( http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E=mc2.pdf ): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.


Bligh said...

I find the last paragraph unfathomable. Energy is the word we use for action or motion. It doesn't exist?
Time dilatation does exist. Ref GPS time corrections. In a frame of reference etc etc.
Space does not shrink with increased acceleration, as per SRT.No proof of that. Read Thomas E. Phipps Jr. "Old physics for New."

Glenn Borchardt said...


Sorry that, like most everyone else, you have been led down Einstein’s yellow brick road to relative confusion. The “fathoming” process cannot begin without the proper deterministic assumptions. George, in the age of regressive physics you are not supposed to know what energy is. Hugh books have been written about energy without producing a satisfactory definition (e.g., Hoffman, E.J., 1977, The concept of energy: Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 573 p).

But for univironmental determinism and neomechanics, the definition is rather simple:

Energy is a calculation. Even if it was motion, it would not exist. Existence is the property of things, which have xyz dimensions. Motion is what things do; it does not have dimensions. Energy is a matter-motion term that we use to describe what things do or what we think they will do. With energy, we multiply a term for matter and a term for motion to describe the significance of a particular motion. A term that only describes motion, such as velocity (dx/dt), is insufficient. Similarly, other matter-motion terms such as momentum (P=mv) and force (F= ma) would be meaningless as descriptions of motion without the term for mass. Like energy, momentum and force do not exist; they are only calculations.

Another way of thinking about matter and the motion of matter is through this everyday example:

Matter is something that I could figuratively put in my back pocket. I could not do that with motion. Thus, I could put a frog in my back pocket, but I could not put his last 100 jumps in my back pocket.

You mentioned the silly idea of “time dilation” that Einstein invented to preserve his equally silly idea that the velocity of light was always constant. See my most popular blog on Time is motion. The upshot is that motion cannot dilate, since it is not “part” of the universe and does not have xyz dimensions. Sorry, but GPS does not require corrections based on relativity (Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS - I ( http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf ). They are based on simple Newtonian mechanics.

Unfortunately, George, your reference (Phipps, 2006), got it backwards. He knew he must make a choice between dilation of time and the dilation if matter. Following the current propaganda of regressive physics, he incorrectly chooses time dilation. Space, on the other hand, always contains matter, which can dilate or contract. Microcosms dilate somewhat upon receiving collisions that produce their acceleration. This is because the submicrocosms within also would be accelerated to a degree, producing an increase in their momenta. Subsequent impacts on the inside of the microcosmic boundary might cause it to yield somewhat. This is why a piece of metal expands when you heat it (heating is a form of acceleration in which most of the impinging motion accelerates submicrocosms more than the microcosm). That creaking noise that your metal roof makes in the morning is an illustration of E=mc^2 when some of the motion of aether particles is transferred to metal, causing the metal to expand. The creaking starts up again in the evening when the metal cools, imparting some of its motion back to the aether and contracting in the process.

There are good political and philosophical reasons for your confusion. The universe demonstrates only two basic phenomena: 1) matter and 2) the motion of matter. Believing that makes you, not only a materialist, but a mechanist, along with all that entails for your worldview. Einstein was anointed a genius and used to rescue the opposing, indeterministic view held by the authorities along with most of their followers. The denial of aether paved the way for energy construed as an indefinable kind of matterless motion. That fit with Einstein’s concept of “immaterial” fields. They could be modeled mathematically even though he could not give a physical explanation for the actions observed.