The failure of pure science
© Editions d'Assailly, 2009, 2010, 2016
ISBN : 9782902425211
Louis de Broglie called "pure Science" the modern physics. Pure science is mathematical physics, as opposed to lumpen-sciences, this is the very words of Albert Einstein, such as fluid mechanics and fracture mechanics of materials. These impure sciences use mathematical equations, but rely heavily on the use of experimental data. It's ugly! Pure science shall use the fewest universal constants. Its equations are then used to find the experimental results.
Since Newton and Maxwell, physics has been completely mathematized. Today, no doctoral thesis and no scientific paper may be accepted and published if it is not studded with cabalistic symbols. Without sigmas and deltas, without straight and rounded “d” of derivation and large “S” of integrals, without rotationals, without divergences, without Laplacians nor Hamiltonians nor d’Alembertians, embedded in an ether of Greek letters, your text has not the slightest chance to pass through the meshes of the famous "peer review". The positivist goal has been fully achieved. Out of math, no science!
For some fundamentalist scientists, mathematics would be the nature of things. Yet others noted that such a vision implies a continuous nature of physical phenomena. They think, instead, that everything would be essentially discontinuous; everything would be made of particles including all fields and forces. They are about to discover the fundamental particle that would give life to everything, the cause of all phenomena. The history of physics is about to be completed!
Already in 1824, the scientist Jean-Baptiste Biot said that with the theories of Newton and Coulomb, physics has become an almost completed edifice, an achieved science, stable and impossible to reverse .... ". In 1900, Professor William Thomson Lord Kelvin thought that physics was essentially complete, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement". A century later, the string theory should have definitely completed modern physics. However, string theory has collapsed in the crash of its eleven dimensions. It does not matter. Scientists expect everything from the huge CERN accelerator at the Franco-Swiss border. With the inevitable discovery of the fundamental particle, physics finally will end. Everything will be explained, except for some small details which can handle our descendants.
Nothing can shake the blind and pathetic faith of scientists. They consider the relativistic and quantum dogmas as irrefutable truths. There are a few small details that refuse to enter the sublime paradigm. But pure Science certainly will not take long to resolve them. Moreover, in the same way that there are the real facts of Marxist’s praxis, there are the “good experiments” of Pure Science. Other facts, other experiments do not exist, period. Not licet esse! They can not exist, to use a word attributed to the friendly Nero. They do not care the results of Miller, of Esclangon and Allais.
There are also countless paradoxes. Our fundamentalist scientists believe that Nature is inherently paradoxical. Why Nature would obey our rationalism? They survived the Sagnac experiment; they survive all the paradoxes that accumulate as we are going to see.
Yet thousands of other physicists are against the dictates of the single thought of pure Science. It is not the wind of criticism. This is the storm of the revolution. It is no longer just to challenge some questionable aspects such as the Big Bang, black holes, the postulated absolute limit of the speed of light. As you will read, this is first a general determination to return to a physical medium in space, to an ether, and a general rejection of a probabilistic world.
Indeed, the incompatibility between the probabilistic vision of Quantum Mechanics and the deterministic view of the two theories of Relativity remains the fundamental paradox of pure Science. But there is another equally fundamental paradox inside Quantum Mechanics itself. How to reconcile the indeterministic nature of the photon with its perfectly determined and absolute speed. The photon has a probability of presence but its essential property, its speed, is itself fully determined. Its position really exists when it is intercepted by a sensor. Its wavelength is revealed at that fatal moment. Its direction of polarization, also. But its speed? It is accurately determined, even though it may vary depending on the medium and the presence of gravitational fields.
It is the failure of Pure Science! Presented in the first part.
This is the time of alternative paradigms! Presented in the second part.
Questions and failures
The principle of Relativity
"The idea of relativity and the relativism were the concern of all centuries. The idea of relativity, like most of pure Science concepts, is a living concept whose meaning has gradually clarified during a troubled and uncertain development. This word was particularly attached to Einstein's theory because of the circumstances that have marked its origin. Until Einstein, the concept of relativity has been opposed to relativism. Relativism is an aristocratic notion. It involves a hierarchy and privileges. The privilege bound the prerogatives of the absolute observer to the organization of the cosmos. On the contrary, relativity is a democratic concept, which implies equivalence, equality of observers. Relativity is a democratic concept which implies equivalence and is expressed by invariance. Relativity, i.e. this indifference, is a feature of the observer and his motion. The content of phenomena’s relativism concept and observers’ relativity concept varies in the opposite direction. Relativity is built up and progressing at the detriment of relativism. Qualitative leap can only be done in pain. Relativity is an authentic revolution, the source of a new humanism. It is an unprecedented leap forward, an unprecedented renewal of the history and philosophy. The inevitable relativity has sufficiently demonstrated its inexhaustible fertility so that it is perfectly useless to try to come back from an irreplaceable vision, from a new ethical choice transforming philosophy, art and science itself in an unalterable ferment".
These long excerpts from the masterwork of Relativist Professor M. A. Tonnelat, "History of the principle of relativity" bind the evolution of ideas in physics to the myth of the Great Night. One can not underestimate the connection between historical materialism and the development of pure Science in the twentieth century. Equality of observers is a purely Marxist concept. The reference to proletarian egalitarianism is evident. It was inspired by Albert Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric, a communist muse which he quickly separated. He gave her, as he had promised, half the amount of his Nobel Prize, recognizing her part in the development of his theory of Relativity. It may be recalled, moreover, that Einstein did not like this word relativity and that he had first called his theory: theory of invariants, much closer to reality and in full agreement with his positivist view.
One can not ignore the Marxist temptation among many scientists. The philosophers who were interested in epistemology, the history of science, adhere to the Marxist theses of historical materialism, starting with Bachelard, Kuhn and Chalmers. This approach is no more intellectually correct.
Of course, the justification, almost political, given by professor Tonnelat is not sufficient for rejecting Relativity. At the very least, it may encourage us to question, today, its validity.
Physicists call "relativism" the dependence of physics with regard to the observation and its subordination to the observer. Thus, Lacan wrote: "What makes us say that alchemy is not a science? Something decisive to my eyes: the purity of the operator's soul as such, and so called, an essential element of the case" » (Lacan, Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse © Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1973 p. 18). It would not be the case of course of the relativistic operator, an observer fully objective, of course!
What does that means: independent from the observer?
If it means independence with regard to the qualities, skills, or personal beliefs of the observer, it is obvious.
If it means independence with regard to his position and his motion, it is certainly not true in Fluid Mechanics. Within Fluid Mechanics, physical measures depend on the observer. I am not saying on his quality, skill, or personal beliefs. I mean they depend mainly upon his motion. We get the flow rate of a watercourse by measuring the velocity of the water at several points. Knowing the section of the river, the flow rate is calculated by a kind of integration. If the observer is performing the flow speed measurements from a boat borne along by the river, he will find a flow rate near zero and even negative in some place. Because of friction on the bed, he may measure negative speeds. He shall obviously make measurements from a bridge. He shall be fixed in relation to the bed of the river. Fluid Mechanics is therefore bound to relativism, in the meaning given by relativists to this word.
Before relativists, relativism referred to the impossibility of conceiving an absolute motion. This was the position of Socrates, Plato, Scotus Erigena, Descartes and Kant. In the same vein, it suggests that there is no absolute position.
Aristotle, Ptolemy and their disciples Avicenna and Aquinas have from the outset been against Plato, against relativism. Not only Aristotle and his followers assumed the existence of absolute motions, but they also assumed that the Earth occupies an absolute position at the center of the Universe. It is fully motionless and surrounded by the celestial spheres, the famous orbs carrying the stars.
Orbs, spheres or heavens are found in the Qur'an: " He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth, and He directed Himself to the heaven, so He made them complete seven heavens, and He knows all things.." (Surah 2-29: Al-Baqarah)," Do you not consider how Allah has created seven heavens in layers "(Surah 71-14: Noah) and "It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them"(Surah 65-12: Divorce).
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) has one heaven more than Muhammad (570-632): "Heaven divided into eight spheres. One of these is the sphere of the fixed stars; the other seven, which may be called the seven heavens, are the spheres of the planets. The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circumference. But as one center may have many circumferences, so, though there is but one earth, there may be many heavens." (Summa Theologica Q. LXVIII the work of the second day). Abu al-Farabi (870-950), Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198) resumed fully Aristotle's thesis while rejecting the improvements made by Ptolemy (100-170), unlike Alhasen (965-1039) and Maimonides (1135-1204).
Saint Augustine (354-430) and Rabanus Maurus (780-856) have not yielded to the geometrization of the universe, a fully anthropomorphic vision, typically Aristotelian.
At the root of this relativism is the idea that there are no large or small things in themselves, per se. It is also the basis of the thinking of Socrates and Plato. It was the basis of the systems of Descartes and Kant as well. The whole universe could be twice as large or twice as small that it would change nothing. The problem of the motion is linked to this dimensionless point of view. If nothing is long in itself, there is no speed per se, and no time per se either. This is, once again, a vision completely rejected by Aristotle and later by Hume, Newton and Einstein as well. It is a vision also rejected today by the pure science. Relativists call "archaeological" the systems of the world that refer to relativism. Although it is difficult to understand why Aristotle, Ptolemy, Muhammad, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas and Hume are less archaeological than Socrates, Plato, Scotus Erigena, Descartes and Kant.
The word Relativism is confusing. Relativism of Socrates, Plato, Erigena, Descartes and Kant relates exclusively to our knowledge of Nature. But the spirit, the human mind, on the contrary, is based on absolute concepts. These concepts are not the object of sense-perception, but the tools of the mind to think. The infinite, absolute, continuous, the straight, will never be observed in Nature because our perceptions are relationships and the absolute can not be the subject of a relationship. Moreover how to perceive the infinite? The mind has an absolute reference. These are the few words in the dictionary that are indefinable, without which one goes round in circles indefinitely, words referring to each other.
So that the word relativism should not be taken in the moral or intellectual sense, but only with regard to our perception of the experimental world, the physical world.
In this sense, the Platonic relativism denies the existence of laws of Nature. Nature has no laws. What our scientists call the laws of Nature that is what they can not explain. There are no laws in fluid mechanics. Water is seen flowing; there are no mysterious actions of the air on the aircraft wings. Moreover, these scientists believe they have found the nature of gravitation: a curvature of their famous space-time, so they don’t speak of law anymore. The laws are what we ignore.
In Plato's view, there are also no universal constants, no invariants, no absolute speed of light. There is also a strange paradox in the relativistic approach. Scientists are searching for immutable laws of Nature and absolute invariants while, at the same time, they show us a world in perpetual motion, constantly changing. How to reconcile these two completely opposing views? Nature would it have two faces? Actually, we will see that pure Science is immersed in such a number of paradoxes that this one must not interfere with their theories.
But more, these famous so called laws of Nature pose a surprising problem. Newton's law relates to a hypothetical attraction; it would be acceleration. It would therefore be independent of the speed of the observer. The hydraulic engineer who seeks the flow of a river, measure speeds of the water relative to the bed of the stream. It does not measure acceleration. His measurements are not independent of his own speed over the bed of the stream.
The notion of relativity relativistic holds only because they believe that gravity and electromagnetic forces, as all the forces of nature, would not depend of speed. They would be pure accelerations.
However, air resistance on an aeroplane is a force. It involves acceleration. But it depends on the speed of the aeroplane. The law of air resistance depends on the speed of the aeroplane relative to the air. To report it to the speed of the aeroplane relative to the ground, we shall take into account the speed of the wind. We need to increase or decrease the speed of the aeroplane relative to the ground by the speed of the wind to get the speed needed in the calculation of air resistance.
The fluid action on a body is in no way a force of pure Science. It is not invariant in a Galilean change of reference frame. The forces of pure Science are invariant in such a change of reference frame because they would not depend upon speeds. Fluid resistance is not a force of this kind. A goal of pure Science is the unification of forces. There has never been question of bringing within those forces the resistance of fluids, as well as the constraints of the elasto-plasticity theory. The idea of unifying the mechanical constraints and the effects of fluid with the forces of pure Science would make a scientist laughing. The mechanics and hydraulic engineers are, without any doubt, lumpen-engineers engaged in lumpen-physics as said Einstein! These ragamuffins are sub-scientists in charge of sub-sciences. I should be one of these ragamuffins!
I would rather believe that the ragamuffins may well be those lost in some Early Morning not waiting any more for the Great Night! They are wandering about, haggard! They believed in Science, in pure Science! It’s of easy virtue!
Relativist doctrine includes a hidden assumption. The laws of physics deal only with acceleration. They do not depend upon speeds. The postulate of Relativity includes an underlying postulate. The phenomena of pure Science are only forces, accelerations. The equivalence of gravity to acceleration, postulated by the General Relativity, is a consequence of Special Relativity. If gravity were related to the motion of a fluid, as air resistance, then it would not be independent of speed. In the vision of pure science, gravity can only be acceleration.
There is behind even more than a postulate. Here is the principle of relativity, the famous principle of Poincaré. This principle is fully underlying Einstein's theory. It is surprising that the name of Henri Poincaré was not associated with it, and Albert Einstein has been even accused of plagiarism. In fact, Einstein did not appropriate that alleged principle. He simply mentioned the "principle of relativity", without mentioning the author. One can understand reluctance, in full Dreyfus case, to state the name of a French who nevertheless intervened vigorously in favour of retrial. His cousin, Raymond Poincaré, wanted to hide the affair, for political reasons but certainly not by racism.
Newtonian mechanics makes accelerations independent from Galilean reference frames. Gravitation would be caused exclusively by acceleration. It could underpin neither any motion nor any speed.
The curvature of the free surface of a fluid in a rotating container is parabolic. Newton saw there the evidence of an absolute reference frame. However, the centrifugal force does not exist physically. What exists is the container wall that forces the water to turn despite its inertia. The centrifugal acceleration has no more physical existence. The acceleration is a mathematical formula that gives the measure of the effect of the wall on the water. What are existing are the physical wall and the water with their respective motions. These motions are only relative velocities. You see bodies in motion relative to each other. There is no hardware support of the centrifugal acceleration. There is no reference accelerations because the accelerations have no physical existence.
Acceleration is the measure of change of the movement. What is only existing physically is the motion and the physical action that modifies it, as the sling rope changes the direction of the velocity of the stone. Without the rope, the stone would go straight. The rope forces it to bend its trajectory. This change in direction of the velocity is measured by a centripetal acceleration reflecting the pulling force of the rope launcher.
However, speed changes can be seen. If the speed changes something shall have caused the change. There is no acceleration without cause. Acceleration does not physically exist. But of course, the cause of the speed changing exists. What exist are the mass, the inertia of bodies, and the action making the mass turning. In the sling, the only realities are the stone, the rope and the hand holding the rope. It forced the stone to turn.
The principle of relativity is required by the mechanics of Newton. Gravity would be an acceleration existing physically. The masses exist. It is the inertia of bodies. Thus gravity would be an acceleration of these masses in the fields of gravity. So, gravity would be an acceleration that physically exists. This acceleration would exist in Space. So that arises a problem of reference frame. This acceleration is independent of relative motions of Galilean reference frames in uniform translation relative to each other. It is only because Newtonian mechanics assigns a physical reality to the acceleration of gravity that the principle of relativity is necessary. The principle of relativity can not apply to Fluid Mechanics. This would be completely absurd. What counts in fluids are the actions of contact between fluid particles and contact with the walls of the bodies moving inside. The problem of reference frame does not arise in Fluid Mechanics. The principle of relativity applies only within pure Science!
The electromagnetic field of electrical currents would result from the translation speed of electrons in conductors and in the cathode rays. This phenomenon is linked to a speed. The law of Maxwell-Ampere should be changed if you write it in a reference frame in uniform translation relative to the conductor. However, the speed of electrons in the conductor is not changed. The magnetic field is not changed, of course. If you write the law of Maxwell-Ampere in the new reference frame, it is necessary to remove this fictitious speed.
Hence the Lorentz' formulas? Unfortunately no! Everything would be clearer if it was true. Lorentz' formulas can not rectify this situation. It shall be like for the flow rate of water: only the speed of electrons in the conductor shall be taken into account. The problem of electron beam is more embarrassing. There is no conductor. What should be the reference frame? Nobody worried.
Lorentz' formulas concern the propagation of light and the speeds with a magnitude of the celerity of light, in no case the speed of electrons in conductors that does not exceed a few cm/s.
The Lorentz’ formula are only able to make invariant the Maxwell-Hertz' equation. This is the simplified Maxwell-Ampere's equation. It is applicable when there are no electrical charges. This is the equation of propagation of electromagnetic waves. In contrast, the Maxwell-Ampere's equation is affected by a change of reference frame. The term related to electrical charges is expressed by the intensity vector. Its module is the flow of charges. However, this flow rate of charges depends on the speed of electron, exactly as for fluid flows. In the case of electrical currents in conductors, it is very easy, you have just to be careful to take only that speed into account. A reference frame change does not change this term. One shall ensure that it is related to the conductor. Then it shall not be change any more. Why? Simply because we know that any reference frame change would alter the flow rate of electrical charges. A change of reference frame is a mathematical operation. The mathematician would be appalled if he knew that one excludes one of the terms of an equation during the process of changing the reference frame. The scientist of pure Science reserves the right to be intelligent and to apply the rules of mathematics as far as they do not disrupt the beautiful arrangement of his postulates. One closes one's eyes and goes his way on. But what will do the physicist for cathode beams? What is the reference frame that allows for calculating the value of their magnetic field? How the law of Maxwell-Ampere would reveal the motion of electrons to be taken into account? Before running, head down, in the calculations, it is necessary to examine, analyse, judge. The scientist has no alternative than to analyse the path of these electrons. He has to go back to the transmitting cathode. Then seeking for the anode. He shall also know that the speed of electrons is delivered by the anode. This will be the initial reference frame. That is the reality. The physicist is he still within the frame of Relativity? Is he not rather within a full relativism? He is no longer the passive instrument recording the subject of its measures. He is a man who analyses a situation. No device is capable of such an analysis. The observer shall be objective, I know, but he shall also think. No device is capable of such thinking. The scientist shall also judge. No device is capable of such a judgement. But the worst is to come. What is the reference of his judgement? This is the official paradigm. This would be an undeniable truth! The physicist has not the right to think in another way than within the relativistic frame. The relativist concept of objective observer is a scam. Their observer is relativist!
The speed of the Earth around the Sun is about 30 Km/s. This speed is 100 000 times higher than that of electrons in the wires, a few cm/s. It is still very low compared to the celerity of light. How is it that the Lorentz’ formulas allow for explaining the result of the Michelson experience? It uses the optical interference phenomenon, which is extremely sensitive.
This experiment concerns the celerity of light. We should have found that these 30 Km/s add to or subtract from the celerity of light emitted in a given direction relative to the surface of the Earth, according to the hour of measurement.
At that time, a mechanical solid ether filling in space was assumed to be a motionless absolute reference frame. Earth would have moved in this ether. Not only should its speed relative to that ether have changed according to the position earth on its path around the Sun, but also according to time. If at noon and midnight, solar time, the interferometer is parallel to the direction of Earth motion, at 6 hours and 18 hours, it finds itself in a plane perpendicular to that path.
Lorentz' formulas cancel the speed of the Earth relative to this ether for the phenomena linked to the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Additionally the celerity of light would be an absolute. You could not add to or subtract from it any speed even the smallest. The formulas can also correct the inertia of the particles in accelerators. This is in line with what is measured.
Relativists also explained the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Its speed around the Sun is only three times as large as the Earth speed. There is a kind of leverage effect. The advance of the perihelion is extremely small on one revolution. It can be measured in long term. Through this integration, the phenomenon becomes measurable.
Newton's mechanics like General Relativity theory involves another issue related to the mathematical laws of nature. In the theory of gravitation, one wrote that the action of the Sun on the Earth is equal to the action of the Earth on the Sun. The problem is the same when talking in terms of curvature of space. This curvature implies acceleration. These are two equal actions: action of the Sun on the Earth and action of the Earth on the Sun. Where are the reactions?
How the Earth reacts to the action of the solar attraction, and vice versa, how the Sun responds to the gravity of the Earth? Attracting is not identical to being attracted. Mathematically, it is clear that the masses are interchangeable. In one case, the mass acts to attract, in the other to be attracted. But the interchangeability of the masses does not mean the identity of phenomena. The fact of attracting a mass is not the same as being subjected to the attraction of this mass. In Fluid Mechanics, fluid moving acts by friction or pressure on the bodies. The bodies react to this action of the fluid by constraints. Within mechanics, a support reacts to a load by constraints. The reaction is equal to the action, but action and reaction are not identical, they are not of the same nature.
That is why the Fluid Mechanics is not a pure Science. It's empirical physics. In this impure physical, the action is not of the same order as the reaction. Scientists supporters of pure Science have no obligation to differentiate an action from a reaction. For them, there are only mathematical concepts. Action and reaction are accelerations that nothing can therefore distinguish. It is therefore sufficient that the actions are equal to each other so that the reactions are also equal to actions.
There are no reactions in fact within Newton theory. The attraction of the Sun on the Earth is not a reaction to the attraction of the Earth on the Sun. The attraction of the Sun exists even where there is nothing to attract. This is even more evident with the curvature of space. Space is curved even if there is nothing to accelerate. The fact of placing a body in this space does not create the attraction of the Sun. It was pre-existing. The attraction of the Sun shall cause a reaction of the body. This body had its own metrics with him. His attracting or curvature power is not created by its introduction in the solar system. It was also pre-existing. Reactions are fully missing.
The actions to distance pose another problem. The response can not be instantaneous. The reaction is delayed by the distance between bodies. The equality of action and reaction is thus ensured with a delay. This is no more a problem if you merge action and reaction. This is obtained by axiomatic. Gravitational actions are actions and reactions in the mean time by postulate: the masses are fully interchangeable in the equations. The curvature of space-time seems to provide a better answer to this problem, since the curvature acts at the very point where a body is attracted. However, the reaction to this curvature effect should propagate to the attracting body and vice versa. Again relativists need that action and reaction are the very same single reality.
The axioms of equality of actions between two bodies on one another and the identity of actions to reactions seem to conform to facts, so that there would be no questions to ask!
The axiomatic looks like Brezhnev’s method! That's a joke of the Russian Soviet era. Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev are in a train stopped in the open country. They send Stalin see what happens. He returned triumphant. The train will leave. What have you done, comrade? I put to death the driver and I sent the mechanic to the Gulag. The train remained still. They send Khrushchev. So, we leave! What have you done, comrade? I rehabilitated the driver and released the mechanic. The train does not move further. Brezhnev gets up and closes the curtains: do as if the train was gone. That's axiomatic. Move along, nothing to see! We can afford any postulate provided it works. That's how the gravitational action is also a reaction. That is not allowed in Fluid Mechanics and Strength of Materials. What's more normal? These techniques are already bad enough by themselves to be tolerated that they rely on the axiomatic method strictly reserved for pure Science. One would hardly accept an axiomatic shipwreck or an axiomatic aeroplane crash. Engineers are not entitled to use axioms.
An axiom would be valid if it gives results in line with experiments and come under the "scientific logic" towards the unification of forces. Pure Science would have reached a mathematical irreversible level. The axiomatic is the foundation of mathematics. This method would be perfectly justified in pure science.
The beautiful pure Science has unfortunately some problems, shamefully experimental. They are called most often paradoxes. Pure science is faced with an accumulation of paradoxes.
A theory inspired from Hegel still reigns in some so-called advanced or progressive circles. The quantitative accumulation of some elements should lead to a qualitative leap. It is the vision of historical materialism, the Marxist dialectic, which still predominates widely in scientific circles and in many so-called intellectuals.
The music composer accumulates dissonance hoping the qualitative leap towards universal music, absolute music. It remains today very lonely. Another music took a different path and it accompanies songs, which have invaded the planet.
Painters follow without waiting for it: horrors accumulate! Square faces, eyes shifted, deconstructed hands. Accumulate, accumulate the horrors! There will come a qualitative leap, the universal painting, absolute painting.
Scientists expect a qualitative leap in scientific knowledge by quantitative accumulation of paradoxes.
Michelson's experience has not given an entirely negative result. The results were considered as at random. They can reach 9 Km/s, which is not nothing compared to the expected 30 Km/s. This would involve the measurement uncertainty, the margin of error. This is therefore a problem of measurement error. The scientists also discussed the influence of temperature, but they never give quantifiable justification.
Unfortunately, Miller has taken measures on a systematic basis, by tens of thousands of measurements over months. He has made 200 000 reads with 6400 tours, during four periods of six to eight days. Moreover, the measurements were made in places far away from each other. These figures make it unlikely an artefact. The results are not at random. Miller found an annual correlation. Professor Allais found other correlations in analysing again these results. He took into account the sidereal time and not the local time of these measures. Allais claimed an irrefutable anisotropy of optical space.
In analysing the results of Miller with the latest and proven techniques of mathematical statistics, Professor Allais has demonstrated in the early 90s, there can be no correlation with a temperature problem. He found correlations with astronomical annual, monthly and daily frequencies that can not be reconciled with variations in temperature. It was calculated that a gap of at least 10°C would be necessary. That's huge. Imagine how such a change in temperature, could occur? Even in the wind, it is unimaginable within a few minutes duration. That is sufficient to operate the rotation of the device and to proceed to the second measure. The principle of the Michelson's experiment is to perform two measures before and after rotating the device a quarter turn.
The statistical analysis tools are perfectly mathematics and leave no room for personal interpretation. The basic requirement is a sufficient number of data. The law of large numbers. This is absolutely not the case of weather or demographic statistics. The data are limited. In these areas, the result of statistical analysis is not without value, but the confidence index is low.
Einstein was informed of the results obtained by Miller in 1925, with an interferometer much more precise than that used by Michelson in 1881 and 1887 by Michelson and Morley. Miller said he discovered an effect of about 10 Km/s. It is only a third of the expected value before the Michelson measures. However this is not negligible.
One found a letter from Einstein to his friend Besso mentioning that experience. Einstein immediately attributed this result to a problem of temperature. He admitted immediately the results of the Eötvös’ experiment, however objectionable. This experiment has been severely questioned later on. Conversely Einstein questioned the experimental measures of Miller. "It's a biased, perhaps, but Einstein made a wise choice, inspired by a safe intuition," wrote Professor Tonnelat. It is the Bonald’s thesis: truth comes from authority! It is the soviet thesis as well.
On the basis of his statistical analyzes, Professor Allais concludes that it is possible to determine the motion of the Earth around the Sun by optical experiments, which is entirely contrary to the theory of Relativity. The most amazing is that other experiments, which have nothing to do with Michelson interferometer confirm the view of Allais. These are first his measurements of the deflection of Foucault's pendulum. Allais improved the Foucault's pendulum with his paraconic pendulum. He has eliminated the wire twisting caused by the rotation of plane of oscillation of the Foucault's pendulum. Here also, the measures were done over months, and were carried out in several places. This mechanic experiment shows the very same anisotropy of space as Miller’s interferometric measurements. The same result was obtained with optical sights. Allais has, indeed, remade the famous Esclangon measures and he achieved the same result. The sight deviations remain unexplained.
All these experiences and calculation have been carefully considered by the committees of the French Academy of Sciences. They were all rejected in their time. The author would not have provided evidence of the absence of external influences. One may, again, imagine a lot of such disturbances. The author was to provide evidence. Allais answered accordingly. Nobody wants to hear anymore from that dissident intruder.
Measurements of optical sights abnormalities by Ernest Esclangon at the Strasbourg Observatory are totally ignored. A light ray observed with a collimator located a few meters from the source moves substantially depending on the hour. These measures were first confirmed by Professor Allais in 1958 and then in 2008 by the chief engineer of Armament and Peter Fuerxer with Professor Vincent Morin.
All these experiences demonstrate that it is possible to identify a translation motion by both mechanical and optical experiments. These results are presented in the fourth part of this book. They are completely contrary to relativists' postulates. Allais attributed these results to anisotropy of space. He offered several reasons for this anisotropy. All are related to the motion of the Earth. We will examine these alternatives in the second part of this book.
By 1918, Harress then Sagnac succeeded to measure a difference of optical paths between two beams of light travelling in the opposite directions along the periphery of a turning disc. Harress performed his experience in water, Sagnac in the air. This experiment is the principle of gyrolasers. All aeroplanes are equipped with such gyrolasers. They replace the mechanical gyroscopes. How an engineered device could claim disrupting the mythical order of pure Science? A false problem, certainly!
The problem is that this false problem remains unexplained since 1918. Relativistic metrics that would explain this experiment by General Relativity has still not been found. In the Michelson's experiment, there is also a rotation. But one made two measurements in two different positions. The rotation of the device does not play any part. This is a question of Special Relativity. In the case of the Sagnac’s experiment, on the contrary, the displacement of the interference fringes depends on the speed of rotation of the apparatus.
Professor Tonnelat explains in one of her books that Special Relativity explains Sagnac's experiment, as a first approximation. How is this possible? The peripheral speed of the Sagnac's disk can not modify the celerity of light. The problem could only have a rigorous solution in the frame of General Relativity. This solution had never been found.
The professor Tonnelat takes the "classical Euclidean interpretation of the Sagnac’s experiment, valid only in an approximate manner," due to Professor Jean Perrin.
One thing strikes the mind in that demonstration. Professor Tonnelat begins with endless calculations related to the measurement of length, which she does not use afterward. Only the calculation, just as endless, related to the time measurement is used. Why the measure of lengths does not play any part? More over she used a definition of simultaneity, which is presently considered as the weak point of the relativistic position.
She integrates the optical path in the reference frame linked to the observer watching the disc turning. While the foregoing calculations are relative to a reference frame linked to the rotating disc. The reference frame of the observer is tangent at t time to reference frame of the disc. Here is the step back to the Euclidean vision. The Sagnac’s apparatus is in the inertial frame of the laboratory. She is therefore entitled to disregard the General Relativity. She proceeds, at this point of the demonstration, to a change of reference frame. The main problem is related to the question of simultaneity. The fact of being tangent at the instant t does not imply tangency at the instant t+dt. Yet it is what is assuming her demonstration. Finally, she obtains a result approximately complying with the experiment.
Her interpretation of simultaneity is fully adverse to the relativistic postulates. This change of reference frame is absolutely forbidden by the theory of Relativity without applying the Lorentz’ formulas mainly for evaluating the simultaneity. These formulas cancel any change in optical path between the two light beams running in opposite directions at the periphery of the disc. One can verify easily that the result obtain by Tonnelat is impossible by deriving it. One finds then that the peripheral speed of the disk is added to or subtracted from the celerity of light, which is impossible in the relativistic approach. She is fully misleading about the relativistic simultaneity implementation. This critic is the basis of many critics against the relativist explanation of Sagnac’s experiment. It is really impossible to explain the experience of Sagnac by Relativity, not even by approximation.
Finally, Professor Selleri demonstrated in 2003 that any such explanation is necessarily paradoxical.
At the end, the reader who has not been put off by the length of the calculations, after all quite simple, falls on this statement: "The inability to demonstrate the result of the experience of the rotating disc by Special Relativity is a proof of the validity of General Relativity, and even it is the best proof". One remains speechless in front of such an argument! It would be necessary to demonstrate the unicity, so that what is sufficient becomes necessary! It would be necessary to demonstrate that there are no alternatives. But these are views of philosophers. Pure Science does not stop with these considerations out of age. Relativity has sufficiently demonstrated its inevitability that moods of philosophers have not of course to be taken into account.
Madam Tonnelat placed this experiment at the beginning of his book devoted precisely to the proofs of the validity of General Relativity! It is obvious! If the explanation is not possible with the Special Relativity, it shall be explained by General Relativity, which is then proven de facto.
Finally, professor Tonnelat qualifies Sagnac’s experiment as "internal experiment" to a reference frame. In these references, the phenomena occur in accordance with the classical Euclidean metric. The laboratory where the Sagnac’s experiment is carried is an inertial reference frame. But of course, Sagnac’s interferometers, optical gyroscopes, installed in the aircraft are, in themselves, inertial reference frames. But then, a doubt flat. One wonders. Nobody concludes: no waves! And in addition, they carefully conceal the problem of simultaneity in these reference frames. The idea of "internal experience" arises like a dog in a game of bowling in the history of the principle of Relativity. One may feel a doubt, one may see a shadow turning insidiously behind these nice calculations, behind these beautiful words.
The challenge today is the cosmogony. Crisis has cut research budgets. It is essential to devote all means to determine the age of the Universe, the extent of the residual temperature of the Big Bang, the number of dimensions of the deceased strings of the failing quantum fields theory!
Esclangon, Allais, Sagnac are the source of three major paradoxes. These are not the only ones, far from it. There are four main categories of speed measurements exceeding the speed of light:
- The superluminal neutrinos. Neutrinos travel beyond the speed of light. Neutrinos emitted by the huge energies of the CERN accelerator, the VLHC, near Geneva, reached Gran Sasso laboratory photomultipliers, OPERA, near Roma, faster than expected. They exceeded the absolute speed of light. The error of initial wiring was repaired and new measurements confirm neutrino speeds higher than the speed of light, result also obtained by measurements made previously on the MINOS installation.
- The Hartman-Fletcher effect, or tunnelling effect, is related the passage of light from one medium to another retaining its speed, which can be higher than the speed of light in the second medium. The Cherenkov radiation can be related to this category. This is a flash during such a change of medium similar to the Mach effect in the air.
- The quasar jets have speeds greater than the speed of light in vacuum.
- The fourth category is broader. It includes the phenomena of peak and phase speeds of light waves. The group velocity is greater than that of the light for an electric current in a coaxial cable. Again, there is no transfer of material or information faster than the speed of light in vacuum. In general, part of the wave train exceeds the speed of light, while the rest has a lower speed, so that the information transmitted by all of the wave train is actually the speed of light.
Apart from the speed of neutrinos, which remains to be confirmed, these categories have all found dedicated explanations, that is to say, specific to each case. Why not ? Don’t touch the dogma!
On the contrary, there is no explanation for the paradoxes of dark mass and dark energy.
The galaxies rotate neither in accordance with General Relativity, nor indeed with Newton's law. Gas and stars of galaxies rotate at constant speed. Worse, their speed exceeds the one used to calculate the visible mass of galaxies. Relativists have therefore invented dark matter, also called missing mass, black mass or transparent material. This material must be homogeneously distributed in galaxies. It would represent 80% of the mass of galaxies. This phenomenon has already been discovered for the relative movement of galaxies pair. At no time, relativists have wanted to see a phenomenon questioning their doctrine.
Unfortunately, astronomers discovered that the visible mass of galaxies varies with the fourth power of the speed of rotation of the stars. This link between speed and mass of stars in their galaxy returns to connect the visible mass and the black mass. This result was named after the astronomer who showed the most numerous and the most significant cases. It is the law of Stacy McGaugh, actually already noticed by Tully and Fisher in 1977. This link between dark matter and visible mass is completely contrary to the theory of General Relativity. The tragedy is that the many experiments tried to highlight this famous dark matter since the middle of last century have all failed.
A similar problem arises for the expansion of the universe since the Big Bang. This is more than a simple expansion that would eventually stop, as was thought. Fifty of distant exploding stars situated 1-6 billions light-years were observed. However, these distant supernovae have a lower light than expected in an expanding Universe. This requires that their galaxy is at greater distance than expected. The universe therefore expands faster than expected. A mysterious dark energy is required to explain this acceleration. The origin of this energy is absolutely unknown.
Dark energy, also known as missing energy, would be a kind of antigravity. It would be linked to astronomical observations made in the 2000, showing an accelerating expansion of the Universe through the theory of General Relativity. 68% of the total energy density of the Universe is missing!
After years of manipulation, the results of the Gravity Probe B experiment appear to show the ripple effect of the Earth's gravity field resulting from General Relativity. In fact, the period chosen corresponds to a time of year when the Earth approaches the Sun. It remains a deep ambiguity. Furthermore, the results show a periodic phenomenon that coincides with the tide times. This is totally unexplained.
General Relativity foresees gravitational waves at certain cosmic phenomena related to neutron stars or black holes. If the relativistic calculations show that observation of pulsar energy loss corresponds to the emission of such waves, it has not been possible to detect their arrival on Earth. Essentially two types of measures are used. The first is based on the displacement of a mirror measured by interferometry as in the Michelson experiment. These monstrous devices, the LIGO, have never detected anything and Scientists plans to build a new one even bigger. The second type uses a measuring cylinder isolated from vibration and placed in a huge cryogenic chamber (ALLEGRO, NAUTILUS and AURIGA). The first positive results have never been renewed.
In any other field, many optical experiments, including those of Professor Aspect, should require information transfer faster than light. Scientists have invented the quantum entanglement to meet this challenge. The particles and photons carry linked information.
It has long been known that two photons emitted simultaneously by an atom must move in exactly opposite directions for reasons of symmetry. When a sensor indicates the arrival of a photon, the detector placed on the opposite side also sees a photon. According to Quantum Mechanics, photons have no particular direction before being detected. They have a similar probability of presence in all directions until they reach a receiver.
The two photons take a direction determined only when they hit the sensors. And these two photons then take exactly two opposite directions. How the two photons can they simultaneously reach the two sensors that are far apart, if they do not exchange any information when leaving the source?
This is the paradox of Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky, the EPR paradox. It was originally thought to question quantum vision. But it turned out to be consistent with the experiments, despite his character completely irrational. Rationalism would have no reason to be applicable in the microscopic world, unlike in the macroscopic world as in Fluid Mechanics, which, remember, is beyond pure science!
Here we must give up the rational view. Both photons are not separate entities with their own and therefore local properties. The problem is hidden if it is assumed that the two photons form a system with properties that are not localized in one or the other.
The two photons, even located millions of light years away from each other, remain in constant contact and without any delay. It would be impossible for them to exchange information due to the absolute limit of speed, that of light. When one is detected, the other is informed instantaneously. The two photons appear in opposite directions without consulting. They are not separable in some way: this is the quantum principle of non-separability. If the photons are not always quite independent, they sometimes constitute elements of a single unit.
In the Aspect's experiment, this result is used with polarized photons. Pairs of photons are produced by a source consisting of calcium atoms. The device counts the photons and their polarization direction in two directions on one side of the source and in two directions on the opposite side.
These counts indicate correlations of polarization directions. The probability of these correlations is based on the calculated values according to the axioms of Quantum Mechanics. More rigorous recent experiments confirmed this result. The probability of these correlations diverges significantly from the rules of statistics. This is the same kind of thinking that enabled Professor Allais to say that the results of Miller's measures Michelson interferometer can not in any case result from variations in temperature and make unmistakable its correlation to the respective positions of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon.
But by far the most famous paradox of pure science is the incompatibility between the deterministic view of Relativity theory and the probabilistic vision of Quantum Mechanics. Scientists put great hopes in string theory associated with particles that would exchange the forces of pure science as rugby players exchange the oval ball remaining grouped on the ground. The comparison is not mine, but of Professor Louis Leprince-Ringuet. They still hope in quantum gravity. Scientists have made many assumptions. This is the great divergence. We joined the alternative paradigms.
However, proponents of pure Science remain unshakeable. They are necessarily on the path of knowledge of reality. Neither the analysis of the results of Miller by Allais nor Sagnac's experiment, can undermine their certainties. These are minor details, false problems. These are fantasies of a few minds clouded by visions of the past. Inevitably they will fit into the inevitable unification of all forces of nature. These crass material experiments certainly can not interfere with the triumphant march of pure Science towards its fully unified achievement.
Scientists are on the way to the end of the knowledge of the universe. If these rare experiments, seemingly out of line, can not slow their academic momentum, certainly objections of some philosophers will not intervene either.
Alain opposed Relativity till his death. He took a strong position in several papers, but mainly in the passage of the "Talks on the seaside": "The curvature of space is a form of sign. Warned by this huge mistake and by this brazen jump from form to motion, I noticed in the doctrine of the relative motion, a similar error, which involves that the relationship is inherent in things."
According Professor Tonnelat: "From now philosophy plays only the part of a historical background, a literary context". Alain would have remained to the vision of Plato, to the Kantian time, where "the subject gives to himself, as a reasonable being, its own universal law."
In these two first chapters, we examined the problem of relativity of motion and experiences related to it: essentially Miller measurements and Sagnac experiment.
The next three chapters are devoted to questions of logic. We will go back to some concepts that have served as frame in the development of relativistic doctrine.
The fourth dimension
Poincaré wrote that our senses are limited to the perception of three dimensions, but nothing says that the space did not have more. Consider the problem from the beginning. A universe with a single dimension is it possible? This universe would have no reason to be perfectly straight. How people living there could they know? Here is a curved part of this universe. Thus appear an angular moment. Should I turn around myself while moving, the Coriolis' acceleration would push me outside my single dimension in a perpendicular direction. So that space shall have at least two dimensions. We are already brought into two dimensions. In this universe with two dimensions, nothing can prevent me to turn around. It's wasting my time? Maybe! And again I have an angular moment projecting me in a necessary third dimension as soon as I move within my plane while turning around myself.
The relativistic solution is to ban rotation in the space of less than three dimensions. There would be no rotation possible in a one-dimensional space. One-dimensional spaces could only be as straight line, true straight line, and not false lines as those of Riemannian geometry. In two-dimensional spaces, we could not turn around an axis located within this space without leaving it. One could therefore turn only around one point. But then the angular momentum of the rotating body would be perpendicular to the two-dimensional space. And if in addition, this area slides over another, our two-dimensional spaces would be over because the body would be thrown out of the plane by the Coriolis’ acceleration.
The cosmogonist mathematical models only consider space with more than three dimensions. Therefore continue climbing. Here is a fourth dimension. Let us assume first, like Poincaré, that the fourth dimension would have the same standard lengths as the three dimensions of our perceptions. Whatever the plane curve I may describe in the good old three-dimensional space, the angular moment will remain within those three dimensions. The projection of an angular moment on an axis other than the one bearing it does not make sense. The rotation around an axis can in no way be decomposed into rotations around several axes. A body can not in any way turn around several fixed axis. There must be universal joints. The axes of lower order to the last universal joint are carried in rotation by the successive universal joints. Thus, if space itself rotates around one axis, the other axes are carried in rotation. The fourth axis would be put in rotation. This would result in a 4D equivalent Coriolis' effect in the perpendicular dimensions, i.e. in the three-dimensional space. This is not the case. Nevertheless, this kind of rotation is forbidden by the believers of the four dimensions. Within such space they only consider "rotations around plane", although this has not the slightest physical meaning and cannot be explained by words. It shall be added that one of the two dimensions of this "hyper-axis" must be the fourth dimension added to the three usual ones. If the two dimensions of this "plane-axis" were two of the usual dimensions, any rotation would pull bodies moving along the other two dimensions outside these dimensions, as long as they are moving along these dimensions. This has never been observed. The result is that the fourth dimension cannot play the same part as the three usual ones. This fourth dimension must always be one of the directions of any plane of rotation.
The Poincaré's hypothesis is perhaps not absurd in a geometrical world, it's a nonsense physically, from the mechanics point of view. This problem occurs of course for any additional dimension over four. So that there can be only three dimensions as we know by our perceptions.
Relativity adds a fourth dimension. It is the time. But this time is considered as a length multiplied by the celerity of light. In the relativistic space, the fourth dimension is a length. The sum of the squares of the differential length elements is the square of the relativistic differential length element, the famous ds² of the Schwarzschild's equation. If there were a rotation around a hyper-axis including time axis, the fourth dimension, then the planets would be ejected out of their orbit. Conversely, any body resting on the surface of a planet and in translation along the axis of time, the fourth dimension, would be flung outside time axis by the 4D equivalent of Coriolis' acceleration when would occur a rotation around an hyper-axis not including the time axis.
These considerations on the fourth dimension are completely independent of the theory of gravitation considered. The Lense-Thirring and Sitter-Fokker effects result of applying the principle of Relativity to gravitation. They would supplement the four-dimensional effect of the equivalent 4D Coriolis effect. This quadri-dimensional effect would exist both in the Newtonian vision alone and in the hypothesis of Mach.
In the context of quantum field theory, scientists have developed theories of space with 11 or 24 dimensions, the unlucky failing strings. It makes no sense. One can imagine n-dimensional geometry. You can apply this geometry to physical problems with n parameters and, perhaps, draw conclusions. This does not mean n dimensions of Space where we are living.
The problem of time taken as a fourth dimension of space hides a much more crucial problem. Relativists enforce a physical and measurable existence to time. The time seems to exist. A watch seems to deliver a measure. The first question is whether the time is perceptible? We have the strong impression of living in time! Do you perceive it with the eyes, with ears, nose, tongue or hands?
This is an impression that is not perceptible. There are many things we cannot perceive with our senses that exist, however. The diffusion of X rays shows the nucleus of atoms and electron clouds. What we see on the photographic plates may not be exactly what exists, but there is something physically. I have no doubt. Gravity is a phenomenon of nature; we feel its effects. I do not doubt that this is something that exists physically. But time is it similar to these things?
Time is not a kind of rasp that would wear out things. Wearing out is the result of frictions between moving things. Have we a motion with regard to time? Obviously, time passes. Time flows. It is no longer the same time than when you started reading this book. It is past and the future instant does not exist yet. We have the impression of living over time, but the past no longer exists and the future does not exist yet. What does one mean by the existence of time? How to get an actual perception of what is not. One could say that “now” exists. This is where we are.
So we exist in the instant, which would be the physical reality of the time. Note that the measurement of time begins to appear quite delicate. One want to measure past that no longer exists. The instant itself is not very long. It must be recognised that the instant has no duration.
We arrived at the idea that only the instant exists. It is thus only this infinitesimal fraction of time, a zero duration that exists in reality? Time does therefore not exist at all? Yet “now” exists. Here we are. Existing, it is existing in the instant, now.
We are in the syndrome of the dictionary! I fear that we can not say anything more about the instant. But time?
It is an idea. A concept which can not be perceived, because nothing like it exists. It is an idea that finds its source perhaps in memory and in the perception that what was existing has now changed. But neither the memory nor the change are time.
Historians tell us that, in a very distant past, ominous individuals who marched in bands, waving their fists closed, tried to overwhelm the world with a doctrine that takes the idea of time as a vulgar copy of a time which would have really existed. Their genius guru said: “Time is only hours” They were called marxists, I remember. Survivors are hiding, apparently, in the progressist jungle. Is this possible?
Relativists also give time the rank of reality. They claim they measure it. They give it a flow, a speed in fact.
Look at this old clock. It does not work anymore for a long time. The pendulum swung. An exhaust system and gears moved forward the needles. Needles added seconds to seconds, minutes to minutes, hours to hours. They counted in some way. Where is the standard use to measure time? Is it the pendulum? A standard time should be a time. The pendulum is it time? It has a motion. It shows successive positions. Is the time motion? Is it a succession of positions? The dial gives numbers of seconds, minutes, hours. Is the time on the dial? Is it a number? Where is time in all this?
Watches are now using oscillations of quartz. They are very small oscillations, but they use amplifiers and electronic counting devices. There is no difference with the old clock. That is what relativists call measuring time.
The idea of time has something of a flow of the past towards the future, through the present. That is the idea of time. The impression comes not from the reality, but of the spirit, of mind. And since this impression comes from the mind, the idea was to be there before any perception.
Yet relativists claim to have proved by experiment that the time changes with speed. In fact, they found that moving bodies disclose phenomena that occur during a lower number of oscillations of clocks. Thus, a moving atom vibrates slower. The life of a particle is longer when moving. These phenomena appear to be slower. They argue that time changes. They do not know anything. They see only phenomena slackening not time itself slowing. This is the relativistic doctrine, which claims that the time is slowing. The theory gives a result complying with experiment, but the experiment does not prove the theory. It could be imagine another theory in which the motion of particles or atoms in a medium changes life time or oscillation wavelength.
The other problem is the famous flow of time. The flow would vary. The time would therefore have a variable speed. Actually, things are a little more complicated. We could not see a change in one's own reference frame. We could observe time speed changes that affect other things when they move with regard to us. Our respective clocks would not have the same speed relative to each other. The reference frames are in motion relative to each other. But we could not say which one is moving. This is the famous problem of trains!
However, time would have a speed because it may flow in different ways depending on the motion of what we observe. But what mean the words "speed of time"? Speed characterises a moving body in space. Where moves time? The instant itself, without duration, can it have a speed? In their rationales, relativists speak of simultaneity. They envisaged instants that could not be at the same time, at the same instant.
Alain wrote in 1926: "We will never find a prime number between 13 and 17. We will never find two instants that are not simultaneous. We will never find a time slower than another. "
The real problem is that the relativistic doctrine uses time as a measurable physical reality. It is a negation of the first of ideas, the first philosophical concept. Placing time within the experimental world is the denial of any form of transcendence. The philosophy is annihilated. The trap is now closed. The relativist nominalism can not be criticised, it is the reality. Judging the relativistic doctrine is to deny reality.
Let us forget the relativists with their abyssal certainties. We put what we see in time. Kant expressed this profound truth in saying that time is a form of understanding. Kant went further. Space has not the slightest material reality. It is a form existing in the same condition as time. There are some differences, however.
All the places we see now, it seems, are space. When I speak of place, I want to say that this dog, for example, has a position in relation to things that surround it. It was lying near the door. It came in and it is now lying under the table. There is sugar in the cupboard! Would I be nice enough to stretch out my arm and catch one for it? It waits. Who knows! But all these places are they what we call space. Where are they now? We are not in a boat. Nothing seems to move. But the Earth turns and moves. These places are already very far from where they were. The Sun takes us at 300 km/s in the galactic rotation! Where are the places? The Galaxy itself is moving in our cluster. What a place?
Yet, we are somewhere in the universe. Even if everything moves, we are somewhere. Where is the universe? We can not say that space is the whole place. The difference with regard to time is that we see what we believe to be a place. But we can not perceive the instant. Then everything is the same. We do not know where places are. We do not know where past and future are. We put these places in space that we think motionless at first. In the former time, space was attached to the Earth assumed to be motionless. Copernicus reported space to the Sun. More recently, one wanted to report all motions to a motionless and solid media which would have filled the universe. It was called ether. But this ether was impossible. We will never find a motionless, an absolute reference frame.
Relativists have rightly rejected the idea of this motionless absolute reference ether. But, the opposite of a mistake is not the truth! We will never find a motionless space. We will never find two spaces moving one relative to the other. Relativists have rejected an error for another. They assumed absolute speed: the celerity of light. But they also assume that there may be several spaces. They call it reference frames.
This is how one study motion in mathematics. One draws reference frames with an arrow indicating their relative speed! Is there in the nature such reference frames with arrows?
Do we see anything else than bodies, leaves falling, dogs running, fishes swimming, birds flying? Where are these famous reference frames? How could they contain something? Have they pitons to cling to as used by alpinists?
Now should we admit that our thoughts have an absolute reference frame where we put things? The word absolute is the crux of the matter. This is the problem of thought. We think by reference to absolute ideas. But it is impossible for us to match our thinking with our perceptions. There is no absolute reference frame in Nature that could support our idea of space, absolute space if I can articulate that pleonasm.
There are similarities with time, but there is first a difference. Length is measured with a standard length. Then one counts the number of occurrence of the standard in the length to be measured. This number is no more a length than the number of oscillations of quartz is duration. But here the standard has something of the length to be measured. The place has something more, apparently, than an instant. The length has something more, apparently, than duration.
The duration was measured in the past. Only remains the memory of the measure and the result even registered; this is past. The length is still there. You can redo the measure.
One can also measure the duration again. One has just to repeat the experiment for example. It seems that it is easier for distances. It is only appearance. If you measure distance of travel of a moving object, you have to perform again the experiment, unless it left marks. Where are marks? I do not think to a facetious guy who would have moved the marks. I think to what we said of places. The marks are no longer where they were! Their relative distance is it remained unchanged? We suppose. In general, there is no problem. The pattern of the dressmaker will always give the same dress, even if moisture has changed and the paper is somewhat enlarged. The difference is not noticeable. The problem arises for the scientist. The length decreases when there is a relative motion. The scientist says that the metric of space has changed. He does not know anything about it. If the standard gives a different number it is because things have changed. He never had access to space. That's why I said that it was only in appearance that the length has something more than the duration. The existence of space is similar to that of time. That is exactly what Kant said, with a small nuance. He did not say that space is one way of representing things, but a way of presenting things. This is our way of presenting things. We put what we see in space. But this space is attached to nothing real.
There is no absolute in the experimental world.
The non-Euclidean geometries
The physical reality of time and space has been postulated by the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism. This pure postulate was already present in the philosophy of Hume and has been adopted by Newton. It has since remained deeply rooted in people's minds. It is one of the fundamental conditions of the relativistic doctrine. Relativity doctrine is based upon the idea that time and space are physical realities.
A similar error allowed for the transition to General Relativity. It's the idea of non-Euclidean geometries. New geometries were established from the definition of the straight-line. These geometries have not yielded any contradictory results and are therefore considered as possible. Practically, in these geometries, the Pythagorean Theorem is not true. The sum of the squares of the sides of a triangle is either higher or lower than the square of the hypotenuse.
What is the famous definition of the straight-line? We learned that the straight-line is the shortest distance between two points. There is a first problem. According to this definition, the straight-line would be limited, whereas the straight-line is infinite. It defines a straight-line segment. There is a second problem. This definition does not imply that the straight-line is continuous. But no matter.
How to ensure that the distance is the shortest? By measuring with a standard length, of course. It's easy! Yes of course! What is a standard length? A straight-line segment. What is a straight-line segment? The shortest distance between two points! One defines the straight-line segment using the definition of the straight-line segment. It's really very interesting!
The principle of causality implies one single cause for specific objects. Specific shall be understood as absolute. It can be applied in the field of mathematics. This is the immediate reason implying that a hypothesis of geometry is demonstrable in absolute terms. The validity of the hypothesis is not only the absence of contrary results. Items included in the assumption shall be absolute. If the objects of the assumption are only relative, neither the proof of the validity nor proof of the error can be made. There is possible evidence only when the objects of the assumption are specific.
The various assumptions of non-Euclidean geometries have in no way any specific value. The objects of these assumptions are not absolute. The definition of the straight-line is the starting point for these constructions. It is not absolute. The straight-line is defined as the shortest distance between two points. This definition contains the definition itself. This definition gives the straight-line an experimental value. The straight-line would be known through a measure. The measure is a relationship. Thus the straight-line would be a relative concept. This definition ruins any possibility of specificity and therefore any mathematical value, any absolute value, to the statements of non-Euclidean geometries. The lack of contradictory results does not assign to non-Euclidean geometries any apodictic value. Apodictic value can only be assigned from specific, absolute objects. The straight-lines of non-Euclidean geometries are not absolute. These are objects that meet a definition devoid of value.
In the three-dimensional space, the non-Euclidean straight-lines are curves plotted on the concave or convex surfaces, depending on the outcome of the Pythagorean Theorem. Scientists use these fictional beings in space with four-dimensions for the General Relativity. The Universe would be expanding in a four-dimensional reference frame. The famous redshift has been discovered there are nearly eighty years by astronomer Hubble. This shift of the wavelength of light emitted by galaxies suggests that they are moving away from us. Their receding speed is proportional to their distance. This shift would be the same viewed from all points of space. The universe inflates like styrofoam. This inflation should slow down. In fact, relativists think to day that it should accelerate. This acceleration is behind the invention of the famous black mass and energy. We must not confuse the black mass of cosmological origin, with the missing mass. The missing mass is not a cosmic event, but a result of the motion of stars in galaxies. The speed curve of stars according to their distance from the centre of the galaxy is not in accordance with the law of Newton.
The sadly passed away quantum field theory also used non-Euclidean geometry of space in 11 dimensions. Unsuccessful attempts have been made with 24 dimensions. This was the famous strings and membranes theory. In these spaces, false straight-lines of non-Euclidean geometries were somehow curved and twisted. Any motion along these famous ersatz of straight-lines implies an angular moment also variable. What happens to the theorem of angular moment? The angular moment should be balanced. It requires balancing moments at any point in space. It requires a dipole field in the corresponding non-Euclidean space.
This curvature implies the observer has local standards of length and time. In each of the four dimensions, the standard length and time are determined by the local value of the gravity field.
When moving from one point to another, the standards are changing of value. The observer has to think that these standards are in fact invariable within his own reference frame. He has no way of measuring the variations. General Relativity postulates that there are no absolute reference standards. The observer will have the impression of being accelerated or decelerated depending on the direction of change in standards used from outside his reference frame. When the standard time lengthens, external observer will count less oscillations. From the inside, the observer feels that time is always at the same speed, while from the outside, his time passes slower. When the standard length is shorter, he will count more occurrences of standard in lengths that he measures. From outside, the lengths are longer. But the observer has no way of realising they have changed since he can only use his local standards. The toll from the outside, of these two changes is acceleration. The standards are linked to each of the four-dimensional space. The change in standards is resulting from the gravity produced by the masses. The masses distort space-time around it. The acceleration that results is geometric. From a mechanical standpoint, observers remain under the principle of inertia. At each point of space-time, the ratio of length standard to the time standard remains unchanged. The length standard changes, but it remains the unit of length. The same applies to time. The ratio of these two units is always equal to 1. With regard to the space-time related to the attractive mass, the observer is accelerated. One might ask what means the sentence: from the outside? What is outside of space and time? This question has no answer. It has not even been asked!
The idea that we have our feet on Earth by the action of the curvature of space-time has some difficulty to be accepted by the common herd. Also, there is a different viewpoint: the quantum field theory. The forces of Nature would be carried on by corpuscles. This view has tried to solve another problem.
If the object subject to gravity has an electric charge, it is in the mean time subjected to electromagnetic forces. A space-time metric also is required for these fields. It requires local length and time standards that are not the same as gravity. It's very embarrassing. This is the reason of the 11 dimensions of string theory. To avoid that the observer should be intelligent and have to choose the right standards and do the right measurements, standards are linked to a selector, a manifold, which is responsible for issuing the appropriate standards corresponding respectively to the mass, charge the magnetic field of this and other body.
Relativists failed up to now in all their attempts to unify the forces of Nature. Specialists of Quantum Mechanics have flown to their rescue. Quantum mechanics is able to explain everything. It pretends to explain matrices vortices of superfluids in a rotating bucket. In fact, specialists in Fluid Mechanics think it is simply the well-known phenomenon of von Karmann street of vortices. It would be much too simple. Quantum mechanics pretends to explain freak ocean waves. Waves would randomly pump energy from waves that surround. In fact, specialists in Fluid Mechanics think it is a Cherenkoff’s effect. It occurs when volume waves meet a sharp decrease of depth. Ocean currents amplify the effect. There are not only thermal currents in the oceans. The thermal currents are tracked by space Infrared photographs. But there are ocean currents not related to temperature. This is the case of the Antarctic current, which turns round Antarctica at a constant temperature. It is not seen in the infrared space photographs. This current is the cause of freak ocean waves amplifying in two cases of such breaking waves that have occurred in Antarctica, without any casualties, fortunately.
Quantum mechanics explains everything; it should also explain the problem of space-time metrics. This is the quantum field theory.
The first problem is the connection of bodies to space metrics reflecting the various fields of forces. This connection should take into account the weight and the charge of the body. There is, at each point of space-time, a kind of manifold that delivers the correct standards for bodies located there. We are in Quantum Mechanics: the manifold is not a magic mathematical formula but a particle. There are particles in space-time carrying metrics. They are able to deliver the correct standards to moving bodies. That is the gauge theory.
The principle of invariance of the laws of physics imposes rules of symmetry. The idea of symmetry breaking has been introduced to try to explain the particular nature of the so-called weak interactions. The photon is the corpuscle of electromagnetic actions. The graviton would play the same part for gravity, but it has not yet been identified. Corpuscles are acting powers of the forces of Nature. The unification of forces is not unifying metric, unification of standards of length and time, but the unification of the principle of those forces. They would be all carried by corpuscles responding to a single model: strings. The strings would have been open or closed in several dimensions. Unfortunately there is nothing now to replace those ghostly strings.
Eyes anxiously turn towards the VLHC, the very large hadron collider of CERN near Geneva. It would reveal the magic corpuscle enabling pure Science to explain the creation of the Universe, nothing less, and save the hegelian totalitarian perspective of a fully unified universe. It should give mass to bodies. We are still rather far from these dreams.
Cosmology is regarded as the only way to understand the forces of Nature. We have to go back to time 0 and then everything will come to light. Alas, instead of illuminating the path that should lead to the final knowledge, the mystery is thickening.
We have reviewed the problems of non-Euclidean geometries and their use by the relativists. We will continue with the problem of absolute.
As long as you talk of facts, of experiments, there are ears, since they fall within the paradigm of pure science. But the philosophical positions with respect to pure Science will only arouse smiles, irony.
These are philosophical questions. Yet these are not those that provide the lowest convictions. I mistrust purely mathematical reasoning. This brings me to wonder if the relativistic approach of knowledge of phenomena is not the most pernicious of anthropomorphism. Mathematics is a tool of mind, a human means. Bringing the knowledge exclusively to mathematical expressions of phenomena, gives them a human dimension. It is very similar to put the Earth at the centre of the World. I am not saying that we should not use mathematics. Yet the growing power of computers allows considering direct simulations of phenomena.
The general belief is that the mathematical expression of phenomena in the experimental world is the essential objective of science. This is the positivist and progressist standpoint. Auguste Comte was the great prophet of positivist doctrine. It was the logical consequence of the Newton’s theory of gravitation and later of the Hume's philosophy. Marx and Engels entered this position in their doctrine of the dialectical materialism. Maxwell developed his electromagnetic theory in full compliance with the positivist assumption. Poincaré, a pure mathematician, and the relativists have obviously taken this vision of physics without thinking for a moment it could be otherwise. But the growing power of computers opens today a perspective much more powerful: the direct computer modelling of phenomena of the experimental world. The mathematics is relegated to a secondary role. One may even consider simulating directly the phenomena without trying to establish any mathematical equations.
But there is even worse. The relativists wanted to make the mathematical expression the very essence of phenomena in the experimental world. I think this idea that mathematics would be governing phenomena, even worth the idea that mathematics would be the nature of phenomena themselves, such as the curvature of space for gravity, is an anthropomorphism.
One will say that it would be anthropomorphism if relativists sought to know the “why” of things and if they thought that the “why” is mathematics. They claim that we can only know how and how would have a mathematics essence. However cosmogonies are in fact research of the “why”. When they try to go back to the Big Bang, there are many reasons to believe it is to know the “why” of the existence of the world, behind the details of how, of the course of events.
It is, moreover, another source of puzzlement. Matter is characterized by fields. Fields emanate from it. Let us consider only the field of gravity. As concentrated as the matter was at the beginning, it has a gravitational field. Antimatter has exactly the same gravitational field as matter. This field has an action that extends into Space. There is therefore a field of gravity spreading in Space from the very beginning. And this spreading is necessarily faster than the expansion of the Universe. Should the universe be contracting or not after an expansion phase, this field still spread over universe. It could be perhaps weaker and weaker, but it spreads indefinitely, it remains in perpetual expansion.
This curvature of space extends from the beginning towards the edge of the Universe. It can not be confined in the core of matter in extension. This curvature has the ability to attract and so there is energy that is distributed from the beginning in the infinity of Space. Energy, therefore mass? If this curvature is carried by the particles, then the Universe is filled with particles from the very beginning.
The continuous expansion of the gravitational field poses the problem of the dimension of the relativistic universe. Relativists give a physical existence to the gravitation fields resulting from a specified time-space structure. The indefinitely extending space-time has a hyper-volume necessarily symmetrical around the initial energy. Blind mind will not accept this hyper-volume has all the qualities of an absolute reference frame!
I never found a shadow of answer to the shadow of a question concerning the shadow of this problem.
However there is no doubt that an absolute is postulated for the celerity of light. Nothing, should it be bodies or information, can exceed the speed of light! Nevertheless we have seen that there are four categories of phenomena where this postulate appears to be questioned.
All these problems relate to the ambiguity of the concept of absolute when it is used for phenomena of the experimental world. It is not proved experimentally that there are no other phenomena. Of course, according to the unified theories, theories of Everything, the TOEs, such as Relativity, all the forces fall under the same principle, including the electromagnetic force and gravity. In these circumstances, there would be nothing outside of these forces and the light itself is postulated to have an electromagnetic nature. We could find nothing else. But many authors are opposed to this vision. On one hand, there are those who separate gravitation from electromagnetism and assigned it a propagation speed above light celerity. They are the most numerous. On the other hand, others separate the electromagnetic fields of light and gravity in an open vision, leaving room for many future developments in physics. They attribute the speed of light to one or both types of actions.
It is quite arbitrary to assume that, for the phenomena related to light, gravity, electrical charges, magnets and other forces of nature, one could imagine there is not the slightest underlying reality and be satisfied by mathematical modelling. One must first note that the mathematical modelling itself is an implicit call for a physical model. It is usually that of the fluid mechanics and kinetic theory of gases. Relativists use the equations of fluid mechanics as models, and they add their own assumptions.
The mechanics of material point developed in the context of gravity does not seem to call for a physical model. It is only appearance. The motion does not appear ex nihilo. It requires action, force, so that there is acceleration.
Using only mathematics models is only admitting ignorance.
The abyss is bottomless when the model involves parameters that are absolutely not perceptible like time. And the absolute error is to consider that the physical phenomena themselves may result from changes in such parameters. The curvature of space-time involves a modification of the flow of time. Assuming that such a flow can have an effect on matter is really an absurdity unprecedented. Because neither time nor a mathematical space can act on matter. Neither time nor space have any possibility of contact with matter. This is not the Euclidean space which makes bodies going in straight line when there is no external action. Only the absence of external action makes them going in straight line. A non-Euclidean space can not turn a body, because the mathematics space does not contain any body that could interact with matter.
The universe shall thus be filled, and fully, by something existing. This refers to Descartes. Naught is not real, but idea. Materialists note that our mind is in the universe and that the ideas and naught are thus there with them. Ideas would be the images of things. The idea of nothingness would be the image of that thing nothing. So nothingness would exist physically. Is it still nothingness? If the mind, supporting ideas, is real and in the physical Universe, since Socrates it is known that ideas are not there.
The relation of mind with the absolute and the infinite is the prerogative of philosophy. As to reach the absolute and the infinite, that is absurd in itself. Perceive the absolute directly or by experiment is equally absurd. Perception, exactly like experiment is relationship. Absolute can in no way be subject to relations. However the relativist claims he has succeeded to measure absolute; the speed of light. He brandishes his trophies bustling on the stands as the victorious athletes.
Let us listening to this one, he speaks for all the others:
"We have succeeded in this way, the feat of strength which is to express absolute by the use of relative." "The bottom line is that despite this relativity, measures of time and space must always be made in the form of specific relations between tensors (vectors in four dimensions), i.e. between absolute." "Man is building science, but the goal of its efforts is to know nature regardless of its activities as subject." "The Theory of Relativity is the theory of absolute through the relative and by the relative" (Mr. Metz intervention in the French philosophy Society in September 1966).
Another, more famous, confirms that:
"The Einsteinian method is essentially to seek a mathematical representation of things, independent from the perspective of the observer, which is a set of absolute relationships" (Bergson, La Pensée et le mouvant p. 37, italic in the text).
I spare the reader the endless wanderings of Bachelard, under the motto: "who grasp all, loose all." The desire to justify too many positions opens the door to some doubts.
One is thinking of course to the celerity of light. It is assumed to be an absolute but this absolute would be acceded. The perceived reality would have reached the absolute that this poor philosopher, insensitive to the huge qualitative leap of the relativistic thinking, continues to deny. Unfortunately the case is not unique. The pure Science makes postulates in all directions. The equation of Maxwell-Ampère? An absolute assumption! The structure of matter? Invariant, absolute! The mass and charge of the electron? Invariant, absolute as well! Who dared to write that everything is flowing? Pure science collapses if everything flows! It is based upon an accumulation of absolute invariants.
These postulates supported by numerous experimental confirmations have petrified thinking. Both in their strength and in their shape, I mean both in quantity and in quality, the essential components of the Universe are permanently fixed. The axiomatic, this pernicious form of nominalism reigns unchallenged.
It is the temptation of the end of history.
Such a history is just an appearance. The appearance of leaves of a tree, agitated by the breeze. But the tree itself has other motions.
By the consciousness of being revolutionary pure Science does not doubt of itself. It is scientific and therefore can not be compared to the philosophical constructions of the past. It thinks grounding certainty, forgetting that what was wrong in thinking of the past was not the thought itself, but the certainty attached to it. Mankind is still more deeply rooted in error. Because this error is based on proposals opposed to the thought of the past, it would be justified.
But scientific knowledge can not, under any circumstances, be considered as truth for that single reason it is opposed to thinking of the past. Saying that relativists opposed to the Lorentz ether does not mean that their theories are justified, should they be complying with the experiment of Michelson. It is a narrow dialectical vision, really a bad dialectic, because there should be merging of the former mistake with its opposite, which is not the case. Moreover the reality should be this merging and it is not the case either. These two opposite positions are only two errors and I pretend that the reality does not bear any relation to one or the other or their interpenetration because they both are equivalent to nought and can not generate anything whatever the binding operator.
Why such a craze?
"We ask for such scientific things that are perfectly unintelligible and fascinate like everything that is deep, mysterious, incomprehensible." (Balzac, Illusions perdues).
"The more the fact is unlikely, the more they are quick to believe. Their vanity is interested. They laugh and applaud to show they understood. Man finds his supreme pleasure in what is supremely strange." (Erasmus, Praise of Folly).
Pure science considers gravity as an isotropic phenomenon. The effect of gravity of a body depends only on the distance to its centre. Gravity has essentially a spherical symmetry.
However, a large majority of systems of the universe have an axial symmetry. This is the case of all the planets, the position of their satellites and their rings when they have. This is the case of the solar system, with the exception of some asteroids and comets. But it is essentially the case of galaxies, billions of galaxies.
Gravity is actually isotropic, but it has also an axial symmetry. Pure science does not take into account the angular moment of stars and systems such as galaxies. There is an overall cancellation of angular moments, for sure. Pure science does not explain how this cancellation occurs. When the speed of rotation of a star varies, how is done the compensation required. There should be another distant action.
Newton thought that there might be a problem. He asked to be given the tangential speed of planets to build a solar system. There is a rotation, so there is an angular moment. Stars also turn on themselves. Where are all these angular moments coming from? How can they balance at distance? Nobody left writings on this issue.
The axial symmetry is characterised by zonal properties. This aspect of gravitation is not limited to the rotation speed curves of gaseous planets. They all have a zonal character. The oceans of the Earth do have zonal currents. The equatorial and tropical currents have a very pronounced zonal character. One tried to give a thermo-saline explanation of these ocean currents. However the Antarctic current temperature is constant. This explanation does not hold. Lack of better, scientists attribute this trend to the winds. That wind can cause the water moving on hundreds of meters deep is in complete contradiction with the most elementary notions of fluid mechanics. It is against the scientific approach to propose dedicated explanations for each occurrence of similar phenomena.
The zones of the planets are separated by regions with vortices. The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is the best illustration. The Sun does not turn as a solid body. Its angular speed is faster in the equatorial plane than near poles. It is also a zonal problem. The speed variation is continuous although for the gaseous planets, the zones are separated. But the solar system has a remarkable feature. All the bodies of its system do not revolve in the vicinity of the equatorial plane. But their inclinations are not randomly distributed. The statistical distribution is zonal. The problem is that the bodies, which have a large inclination, cross through several zones during their journey around the Sun. The zonal effect can be identified only for the relatively small inclinations. Beyond 25°, the distribution is at random. This distribution has a very curious feature: the trough in this distribution is occupied by retrograde comets.
Statistic is not considered a form of objective evidence for most of our contemporaries. There is behind this a total disregard of the principles of that part of mathematics. It must be said that statistic is somehow thankless. It is clear what the figures of geometry are. What is, specifically, the variance or the signing of a statistical distribution? It's much more difficult to conceive. Statistic is very abstract. My impression is that specialists are very satisfied with this situation.
There is also a surprising phenomenon. There is no body that revolves in the vicinity of the equatorial plane of the Sun. The stars of galaxies are concentrated in the main plane, which plays the role of the equatorial plane. Several planets have rings located exactly in the equatorial plane. There is a problem in the equatorial plane of the Sun.
But there is also a problem in the main plane of galaxies. All the stars are in the vicinity of this plane which may be considered as the equatorial plane of the galaxies. But they do not turn normally around the centre of the galaxies. The speed of stars in galaxies should decrease with distance. In reality, the velocity of stars remains constant, between 200 and 400 Km/s depending on the galaxies. This is the problem of the missing mass. This phenomenon remains totally unexplained.
It was discovered in 1933 by Zwicky. He calculated the total mass of the Coma cluster, studying the distribution of speeds of seven galaxies that compose it. He found that the speed observed in the cluster were very high. Newtonian mass was 400 times larger than the visible mass. Smith made the same calculation in 1936 for the Virgo cluster. He made the same finding that Zwicky.
The issue arose more crucially forty years later. Rubin studied the rotation of spiral galaxies. The maximum speed of rotation of a spiral galaxy is a few kilo-parsecs of the centre, and then it should fall according to the Kepler’s laws. In fact, the speed of stars remains constant from the vicinity of the centre of galaxies up to their extremity. The visible mass account for no more than 10 % of the mass of galaxies requested by Newton's law. One must add 90 % of the total mass of the galaxy, even more for some dwarf galaxies, to get that speed curve. This huge additional mass can not be added at the centre of galaxies. Kepler's curve would be raised as a whole but it should, nevertheless, remain the keplerian curve away from the centre.
One imagined a gigantic halo of invisible matter, even within galaxies. This is the missing mass. Some decades ago all telescopes in the World were used to track the missing mass. Astronomers found some planetary systems. They made very beautiful photographs. But they do not found the shadow of the missing mass.
The phenomenon confirms the relative motions of galaxies revealed by Zwicky and Smith. Missing mass causes also optics deviations, the famous gravitational lenses. There are even effects of gravitational lenses without any galaxy cluster in the optical path. In these cases, it misses 100 % of the mass. Some exceptions only? It was found, so far, 60 000 cases. At least that is the estimate considering they are distributed evenly.
Multiple candidates were devised to fill in galaxies and intergalactic space. In addition to ordinary cold invisible matter, neutrinos continue to mobilise significant resources. The strings, candidates for everything, as Quantum Mechanics in which they originated, fall into oblivion after their failure in the framework of the quantum field approach.
It was also thought that there is no missing mass, but a problem with the law of Newton. Some scientists tried, for example, to have it varying with the distance.
Relativists think it is only a problem of mass. The missing mass is hidden. They will finally find it. They keep repeating it is a false problem, thinking perhaps convincing us. They end up creating doubt. We are beginning to think it is a real problem.
The worst was to come! In 1977, an anomaly was discovered. The law of Tully-Fisher. The speeds of spiral galaxies are linked to their brightness, so to their apparent mass. This law was upheld in 2010 by Mac Caugh for all types of galaxies. The missing mass of galaxies is therefore in proportion to the mass perceptible and localised in the very same place. Such a distribution also leads to results contrary to Newton's law. The idea of missing mass does not work any more. We hear the distant hunting-horns sounding the death.
This is a bundle of problems relating to the rotation of stars. A problem of rotation must be addressed as a matter of angular moment.
There are now a bundle of angular moment problems. Taken separately, they are not worrying. Together, they pose a question: what is the pure Science doing of the angular moment theorem?
There is a problem of angular moment for both the galaxies and the Sun. There is a problem of angular moment in Space. Michelson's experience highlights the problem of rotation. It is confirmed by the analysis of Professor Allais. The experience of Sagnac is also a problem of rotation in space.
The joke of Newton conceals a major problem of the gravity field. The product of the mass of a planet by its speed and its distance from the sun is about his angular moment in its rotation around the sun. However, the measures show that this angular moment is not constant for celestial bodies. A general balance of the overall angular moment of all the stars and of the whole matter present in Space, is already a fully necessary hypothesis. It is also required that changes be compensated at any time. How other celestial bodies could be informed that they must increase their angular moment to compensate a slowdown in the speed of rotation of the Earth, for example? The philosopher Immanuel Kant attributed the slowdown in speed on itself to hydraulic friction due to tides. Such friction can not in any case compensate for a decrease of the angular momentum of the Earth since the oceans rotate with the Earth. Today scientists think this is the Moon which is slowed by the tides. The fluid pad retards the movement of the moon creating a return action. It was also thought that the atmospheric jet streams, the winds of high altitude that aeroplanes benefit would compensate, by friction, changes in angular moment. One would understand that friction compensates the energy balance of the whole. The conservation of angular moment is equally imperative and can only be achieved via a variation of an exactly opposite angular moment. It would be another form of action at a distance, in addition to the transmission of gravity. However, the success of General Relativity stemmed precisely from the fact that this theory claims that it does not need any distant transmission of gravitational forces. How to accept now another inconceivable form of action at a distance?
Nobody cares about the balance of angular moment in the solar system, in galaxies and in the Universe. There is necessarily a global compensation in the Universe. At lower levels, one thinks perhaps the compensation does not affect the motion of stars, so that nobody cares.
Probabilism and determinism
The Doppler's effect results from an extremely simple fact. When the source of a sound is stationary in relation to air and to the sensor, the ear, for example, the transmitted wavelength is the same as the wavelength received. But if the observer moves relative to the air, the distance between the successive sound wave crests will seem shorter or longer, depending on the direction of its speed relative to the air. If he goes to meet the waves, the sound will be more acute because its peaks appear more frequently. The speed of sound relative to the observer is not the speed of sound relative to the air because the observer moves against the air. Symmetrically, if the source moves, the distance between the successive sound wave crests will be shorter in the direction of the source motion and longer in the opposite direction. In both case, the speed of sound relative to the air is not changed, of course. It is the distance between crests that is changed. In this case, the distance between crests of the sound waves is actually lengthened or shortened. The speed of the source is not added to the speed of sound in air; it does not subtract either.
For light, it is the Fizeau’s effect. Light is a wave. The explanation should be the same as for the sound. However it is impossible according to the relativist doctrine. The crests of the light waves move towards the observer at the speed of light. The observer coming toward the photon can not see them arriving faster than light. The crests of the light waves therefore reach him always at their actual distance. In order to reduce the distance between the crests, it would be necessary to add the observer's speed to the speed of the crests relative to himself. He can not see them arriving slower if he moves in the same direction as the photon. This is not a problem of speed phase either. The Fizeau's effect exists in monochromatic light. This can not be a problem with speed phase or group velocity. These are concepts relating to polychromatic light.
Since the speed of light can in no way combines to any speed, the Fizeau’s effect can not be explained as the Doppler’s effect in the air. This effect is the result of a speeds composition impossible for the photon. The Fizeau’s effect is a property of light that has nothing to do with the Doppler’s effect. In fact, for the Relativists, the Fizeau’s effect is the result of applying the Lorentz mathematical formulas.
The implementation of Lorentz' formulas gives an additional relativistic effect which does not exist for the Doppler’s effect in the air. This complementary effect has been found by experimental measurements. It reinforces the conviction of Relativists to be on the unique path of knowledge of reality.
Churchill was asked the secret of his prodigious political success. "I went from failure to failure." Being asked the reasons of its dramatic failure, proponents of pure Science could answer: "We went from success to success."
Here a photon emitted by an atom of a moving source. An observer measures the wavelength of the atom. This photon can in no way know for which observer it is intended. He can not therefore carry any information related to any speed with respect to any observer.
Scientists tell us that one must consider the space-time conditions of the source and receiver! These two time-spaces have a relative speed. One must therefore apply the Lorentz’ formulas. From the mathematical point of view, it’s perfect. But physically? How the photon can it have knowledge of the reception conditions with regard to the conditions of emission? How can it have knowledge of the conditions of space and time in the reference frame where it is coming in? The problem is the same as for gravitation. How can a metric communicate energy to a body? How a mathematic being can it be materialized into action? It’s one of the mysteries that Quantum Mechanics is trying to solve by replacing the metric by particles, or rather by integrating metrics into particles. But it is not understandable either. I see I’m sunk. I have not yet understood that the objective is no more to understand, but only to align mathematical formulas
It's exactly the same question as for the experience of Aspect.
A source of information for speed is necessary, exactly as a source of information of the initial polarization state is also necessary. It is also necessary to have a position information in weak light interferences. It is a general problem of the photon, and not a special case of the polarization and interferences.
Aspect experiences make this position untenable. The photon must be informed of the path he should take before reaching the receiver. The paradox is that it would need then a signal faster than light. The answer is quantum entanglement. You don’t understand? But there is nothing to understand in the axiomatic method! Aristotle would have said that this is the nature of things. Period.
A wave in a fluid can be divided into two half-amplitude waves. You can not divide the photon into two photons. The photon can only pass through one of the slits of the interferometer. But if we emit very weak light, so weak that photons follow one another at measurable intervals of time, there is still interferences. Each photon passing through one slot shall know where it should go on the screen not to illuminate a dark fringe.
To explain this paradox, Scientists invented the probability of presence. The photon has the same probability of going through one slot or the other. It is an implementation of the principle of uncertainty. You have therefore a sort of probability medium. Thus, it should explain that the photons are grouped on the clear fringes where their probability wave presence is the strongest.
Proponents of Quantum Mechanics claim that the nature of things is to be governed by probability. This position is determinist. They claim to know the sole cause of the phenomena. This cause is determined by a probabilistic approach. Each element, each phenomenon of nature is probabilistic. Interference observed results from the probability of presence of photons. However, the overall result is fully determined. Interference observed is not probabilistic. Fringes are where they are. There is not any probability of presence of fringes on the screen. This is a serious inconsistency in the probabilistic approach of the knowledge of Nature. They have of course an answer. The lines belong to the macroscopic world and therefore the probability is no longer noticeable.
It may be noted in passing that the ayatollahs of Quantum Mechanics were to give this probabilistic vision the possibility of free will, in a Universe governed by causality. This is a dramatically anthropomorphic perspective. Indeed, causality is an absolute concept that belongs to the mind. We can not think otherwise than in time, in space and according to causality, which in no way implies that time, space and causality belong to the experimental world. The straight and the circle of geometry don’t belong to this physical world either.
I am not sure that Quantum Mechanics can provide the solution to a problem relative to motion. Einstein wrote a book acknowledging the need for the ether. This ether could not in any way transmit light as the Lorentz’ ether. Light is made of independent photons. That ether was actually the very same relativistic space made of metrics of the fields that fill in space. This text was intended to rally support of the ultimate partisans of ether. How to design such a Space without coming back to a quasi-absolute reference frame? I say almost absolute, since it lacks the rigidity of the Lorentz’ ether. It would have a variable shape, depending on the local field metrics. Nevertheless, far from stars and in the absence of matter, such an ether, mathematical in a way, could act as a reference frame for speeds. The problem of Doppler-Fizeau's effect would have an obvious answer, but with a return to a kind of absolute reference frame fundamentally contrary to the principle of Relativity.
The issues raised by the experiments within the frame of the relativistic doctrine led to a probabilistic approach of pure science. This approach was necessary in the context of Quantum Mechanics to explain the properties of electronic layers of atoms.
The most troubling aspect of this approach comes from the use made of statistics. The principle of any statistical approach is that the batch of items to be studied is in a sufficient number. Statistics is the science of large numbers. But Quantum Mechanics applies this mathematical tool to unique thing such as one very single photon. Each electron and each photon has a probability of presence at a point in space. It is used in contradiction with the principle of statistics. The probability of occurrence of an event is calculated on a large number of similar events. The probability associated with a unique thing has nothing to do with statistics. It is pure fiction, a pure theory without any mathematical support.
The same photon is at the same time assigned an absolute speed, fully determined. The essential characteristic of the photon, its propagation, is thus perfectly deterministic in nature. Its position would be probabilistic. This is a major inconsistency. The same object observed under the same conditions, has two contradictory and irreconcilable characteristics. This is the Great Inconsistency.
The magnetic field of electrons
Before discovering the electrons, the wrong direction was given to the electric current in a conductor. The electric current flows from plus to minus, while the electrons are moving the opposite way. In fact there are only electrons moving in conductors, at a very low speed of a few cm / s only. That speed has never been measured.
The same inversion has been made in defining the intrinsic magnetic property of electrons: their magnetic moment.
The wrong solution was chosen in both cases.
The erroneous definition was chosen after a long history. The magnetic field of electric current is presently considered as an effect of the translation speed of the electrons within the conductors. This effect was discovered by Gian Domenico Romagnosi in May 1802. Romagnosi informed the Paris Academy of Sciences of the phenomenon. The Academy did not record the discovery. The Danish scientist Hans Christian Ørsted made the same discovery twenty years later and the Danish Academy immediately published its report. Nevertheless, Ørsted acknowledged that it was informed of the experience of Romagnosi.
Cathode rays were discovered in the late 19th century. In 1895, Perrin’s experiment showed that they are negatively charged. Thomson did, in 1897, the bold suggestion that cathode ray particles are constituents of atoms. Stoney’s experiments, conducted in 1874, were confirmed and the electron name he had imagined now designated these particles. At that time, the law of Maxwell-Ampere was amended to take into account the existence of electrons. But the cause of the magnetic field has not been questioned.
The choice of the definition of the standard model of electrons was considered confirmed by Rowland’s experiment performed in 1876. However, in the Rowland’s experiment of the electrically charged discs rotate. This experiment shows that the rotation of an electric charge produces a magnetic field, but a rotation can not be considered as a translation. It is fully inconsistent to reject the explanation of the rotating disc of the Sagnac’s experiment, even for very low speeds, as an effect of translation and, at the same time, to accept that the rotation of an electrical charge may be equivalent to a translation.
The electron is considered in the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics as a magnetic dipole. It would look therefore like a tiny bar magnet.
In fact, the magnetic field of the electrons is the geometric inverse of the field of a dipole as stipulated by the standard model. The magnetic field of the electron has a rotational structure. This magnetic field is the direct cause of the magnetic field of the electric currents in the conductors and cathode rays.
In the axiomatic approach of Quantum Mechanics, it is postulated that the magnetic moment of electrons is always maintained stochastic, both in conductors and in cathode rays, which are supposed not to be polarized. As the magnetic moments of the electrons are distributed randomly, they do not create a magnetic field in the conductors or in the cathode ray.
Indirect evidence of the erroneous nature of the standard model of the electron results from the failure of the magneto hydrodynamic, MHD. It was the dream of the 1960s to produce electricity directly without turbine by circulating a fluid electrically charged. It failed. There are few experiences that have succeeded to get a very small effect, but they were using superconductors where the main role is the result of the atomic structure and not the mere fact of moving the electrical charges. The magnetic field of electric current therefore is not a result of moving electrical charges.
The standard model of quantum mechanics leads to the existence of two co-existing possible causes of the magnetic field of an electron flux: the translation speed and the "intrinsic magnetic moment." The "intrinsic magnetic moment" of electrons is currently considered a result of the rotation of the electron charge, so that the movement of the charges is considered to be the sole cause of magnetism. However, in a conductor or in a cathode ray, electrons eventually have two possible means of producing the magnetic field. This redundancy is contrary to the principle of specific causal uniqueness applicable to the basic concepts of physics as well as for the geometry. It is also contrary to the principle of simplicity of Ockham. This is the principle of economy, Ockham's Razor: "We should never multiply beings without necessity (nunquam pluritas is ponenda sine necessitate)." This famous statement is also the fifteenth conclusion of the Treaty of the first principle of Duns Scotus. It is due in fact to Aristotle.
The inversion of the magnetic field of the electrons allows for assigning the magnetic field of the electric currents and cathode-ray directly to the real magnetic field of the electron. This real magnetic field is the geometric inverse of the dipole field of Quantum Mechanics.
Conversely a problem arises for magnets. The rotational magnetic field of the electrons can not be directly the cause of their magnetic field. The magnetic field of the magnets results from the arrangement of electrons in the O structures, thus creating a field topology consistent with reality. The Weiss domains are therefore structures different from that implied by the standard model.
This topology inversion would allow considering a quantitative explanation of the Barnett’s effect which currently remains purely qualitative. One might think that the O structures of magnet Weiss domains containing electrons are tilted by the Coriolis’ acceleration resulting from the rotation, giving a significant amplification factor which does not exist in the standard model of Quantum Mechanics.
There is a way to verify that the magnetic field of a cathode ray does not depend on the translation of the electrons. The electric fields do not change the magnetic property of electrons. If a pulsed cathode beam is deflected at 90 ° by an electric field, the magnetic field of the electron remains as it was before the deviation, so that the magnetic field of the cathode ray can no longer be measured by coils placed in a plane containing the beam after deflection, contrary to what can be observed before the deflection.
This small change in the structure of the magnetic field of the electrons has a small consequence. One will have to agree that the Poincaré relativity problem does not arise anymore. Why? The rotational magnetic field of the electrons remains invariant in a Galilean reference change! There is no problem of the relativity within electromagnetic phenomena.
Rest the Michelson’s experiment. Descartes had found a solution before it was realized. In the whirls of his World, it is impossible to see a motion of the Earth relative to the medium of light, the fluidic middle of the Space, because the Earth moves with the medium. More it is driven by the medium which, for Descartes, is both the support of the gravity and the carrier of light. This is what completely confirms the experience and statistics of Professor Allais, the Sagnac’s experiment and the optical sights of Esclangon.
The problem of the value of scientific theories has been the purpose of an abundant literature in the second half of the twentieth century. Many philosophers have tried to justify or to criticise the value of science. I will refer to Russell (1872-1970), Bachelard (1884-1962), Popper (1902-1994), Ramsey (1903-1930), Prigogine (1917-1998), Lakatos (1922-1974), Kuhn (1922 -1996), Feyerabend (1924-1994), Lyotard (1924-1998), Chalmers (1936-2005), Putnam and Onfray.
These philosophers belong to the school of analytical philosophy, called the American school of philosophy, as opposed to phenomenological approaches, specific to the continental schools such as the school of Marburg. These schools are the last refuges of philosophy after the sinking of Kantism, rendered untenable by the relativist postulates. "The general philosophy plays now not more than the role of a historical background, a literary context". In the same vein: "the various branches of sociology, economics, history, psychology share the remains of an ancient moral and a general philosophy out of date" (Tonnelat MA, History of the principle of Relativity, © Flammarion, 1971 , p. 485 and 486).
Russell retains two types of knowledge: "knowledge by direct experience and knowledge by description." Both knowledges would be bound by one principle: "Any proposal [knowledge by description] that we can understand must be composed of constituents that we have [knowledge by] experience" (Russell, Philosophy Problems, © Payot, 1989 p 69 and 80). The problem of the value of a proposal would be ascribed to the correctness of knowledge through direct experiment. The direct experiment is the sensual perception, the sense-data.
The sensitive perception is always true, according to the great thought of Alain. But it can not express anything by itself. The sensitive perception is evaluated by thought before being memorised according to determinations. Thought associates words with it to allow its expression. This sensitive perception is not to form a "constituent" of statements. Words express the mind judgement on perception. Russel, elsewhere in his book, analyses the judgement process, but in the broader context of the validity of reasoning. He has at no time considered the fundamental problems of all forms of judgement: the nature and origin of the criteria of the judgement. Russell rejects the system of Kant. For Kant, the criteria of the judgement are the concepts of the transcendental world. They are independent of the judge: mind. Without independence, there would be no more thought than there would be no more justice if the judge could legislate as he pleases!
Russel rejects Kant's transcendental world. His approach dovetails with materialistic approaches "by abstraction, I discovered what the determinations have in common. This is how I get the direct experience of the relationship considered as universal" (p.126). "Any a priori knowledge concerns only the relations between universals" (p.127). "It's usually through specific instances that we are able to perceive the general principle" (p.137). And finally: the "nature of truth "is" matching with the facts " (p.147). Russel brings back the problem of the truth of theories with two problems: what is the fact? What meant matching?
What he takes as facts, whether his sense-data or his "universal, or abstract ideas" (page 71), are thought in all cases. Mind expresses what he thinks about the perceptions and not what is the perception itself. The judge pronounced the sentence, a judgement on the facts, as he understands them. There is judgement at the level of the expression of the facts. Knowledge of the universals, the other category of facts, for Russell, results only from perceptions, from repeated sense-data. In fact, such an acquisition can only be based on the determinations of perceptions; this is in fact what wrote Russell. In the absence of any form of independent criteria, the universal can not claim the slightest truth.
One may be a little sceptical about the conclusion of Russell: "Unlike the knowledge of things, knowing the truth has an opposite: the error." (p.143). Knowledge of things is unquestionable for Russel since it is based on facts: his sense-data and his universals. This is not true in fact since the universals result of thoughts and the sense-data are themselves interpretations of judgements. One can also think that processing universals involves procedures of logic. And in addition, there is a vicious circle!
Then theories must match with these facts. One expects to see this second level of judgement to appeal to all procedures of logic. It is not. It is sufficient that "the false, the opposite of truth, is possible, that the truth is a property of belief, but a property that depends entirely on the relationship between belief and something outside" (p.147). This rule of obtaining the truth has the advantage of containing the result. The aim is to distinguish the good scientific theories from bad theories. For a theory to be true, it could be false. So we know what distinguishes truth from error, which is the aim.
If the distinction between true and false was always possible, there would never be errors. We do find, in most cases, that a proposal is wrong years, centuries, millennia later. Consider Aristotle! Russell thinks of science today. He launched this thesis in 1912. Science reigns unchallenged. It is no more time to think of the philosophical principles that allow the mind to judge, but to impose to philosophy the pure Science postulate, necessarily true.
Fearing, however, that some idealistic and obtuse minds find some bias, Russel includes belief in truth. Is it also in something from outside? What is this thing outside: this is the fact. But Russell told us at the outset, the fact is truth. Conclusion: the pure Science is truth!
Most of the works of Bachelard is devoted to epistemology. At that time, this activity had no other purpose than to give to the relativistic and quantum approaches a historical justification and a final scientific value. Any philosophy contrary to these efforts should remain a subjective idealism fundamentally wrong. The true way was set as a watermark in the history of philosophy. It was enough to know to sort the wheat. The first step is to see that history is made of revolutions, of qualitative leaps. Here we are: history told by marxists! Bachelard lead us in the history of physics, armed with marxist dialectics. We are going on under guard, as Zeks in Soviet deportation camps. We learn that "the history of science is carried out by a kind of self-governing necessity" (Bachelard, L’activité rationaliste PUF © 1965 p. 47). It was about the possibility of philosophy to justify the value of a theory. No! Science can be judged only by itself. I said that it is the marxist dialectics. The expert set forth his statements according to his own criteria. Bachelard chooses only "in the history of science what may illuminate the contemporary philosophy of science" (p.58). The history of the motion began with Newton. Nothing before!
Then we enter the new certainties: "There are essential concepts in scientific culture that it can not be thought that one can be forced to abandon them. They are no more contingent. "(P 26). Certainly, there are mistakes, but "there are barriers that prevent forever the human mind to downgrade." It was a quite large degree of unconsciousness to write this after the horrors of two world wars and marxist hecatombs! One will say that Bachelard speaks only of science, and specifically of physics. Is pure Science in a world apart? In which world is Hiroshima?
A true scientific "can not accept that the problem of the value of science could be questioned from outside" (p. 4). Science judge itself with its own criteria. Exit Kant: "The reason, in the scientific culture, is not illuminated by natural light." Exit all philosophers: "The scientific mind is understood in its productions, it forms with ease the language of its productions" (p.5). From these bright premises, Bachelard opens the imposing prospect of a pure Science necessarily true, assigned an inexhaustible fertility. The new scientific culture "imposes its tasks, its line of growth." No, I am not translating a Souslov's speech, I am reading Bachelard. You want more? "To exist in books is already an existence. The number of books written on the electron exceeds the number of books written on the Moon" (p. 7 with cuts that do not change the meaning). Conclusion: the electron is necessarily a true concept. Conclusion of the conclusion: if I had the fortune of Bill Gates, I would write lot of books and I would distribute millions of copies so that my ideas would be true!
The importance given to books is merely an expression of the true nature of science for Bachelard. We must first assimilate the pure Science books before being eligible to work towards the advancement of science. It returned to the Middle Ages. The reference is documented. Outside the reference no truth. It was Aristotle. But in addition, the new science is social. The reference of pure Science covers a multitude of names of scientists. Science is a democratic activity. We are far from a wealthy Lavoisier experimenting in his private laboratory. An era gone Bachelard says. "The philosopher must change its language to reflect contemporary scientific thought" (The new scientific spirit PUF © 1934, 1963 p 3).
Take as a "fact to explain", "the double meaning of the scientific evidence supported by experiment as well as by reasoning" (id). This position may seem to express a deep truth if one ignores that the idea behind is a fact. For a materialist such as Bachelard, a fact is objective evidence per se. However, this statement is not a fact, it is a proposal of mind. No sensible perception includes such a wealth of information. Even though this statement would be the conceptualisation of a tremendous number of experimental findings, logic does not allow for a moment thinking that the proof of truth is accessible.
Popper has shown that a set of observations, even in large numbers, can not draw a general proposition. His criticism of induction led Popper to question the notion of experimental verification. A hypothesis can in no way be validated by experiments, even in large numbers. A hypothesis, an assumption is always refutable. If we find a contrary experiment, the hypothesis will be disproved. This process of assumptions and rebuttals, according to Popper, is the very basis of the progress of knowledge.
In fact, I think that there is never contrary experiment. This is a problem of logic. If no amount of experiments can prove a theory, no experiment can prove the contrary theory, i.e., first, that the theory is wrong. The logic is formal and harsh. It is a "narrow, rocky and rugged path with precipices", the path to Hannibal crossing the Allobroge Alps. It is independent of the nature of the theory to be proved. The falsity of a theory is in a purely logical standpoint, another theory, even if it is only including this single negative statement. The logical principles that apply to the verification of a theory are identical to those that apply to the negation of this theory. The complexity of theories is such that it is impossible to apply the principle of a single specific cause. There is a multitude of facts. The specific causal unity is the only way of proof. It is excluded.
The refutationism or falsification theory of Popper has been criticised, particularly by Lakatos. Science is not only to refute or to prove theories. Lakatos proposed the principle of "research program." A research program is heuristic, i.e. involving a progressive enrichment. The basic postulates, the "core", are declared irrefutable. The program defines the methodological procedures and directions of research. It should also eliminate the guidelines considered as sterile. The best theory is one that has the greatest heuristic potential. It is a criterion of effectiveness. We find the Anglo-Scottish school approach of thought. Lakatos, as Popper, relates to Aristotle philosophical systems.
I wish, more seriously, to quote a passage from Habermas on Science: "In the controlled observation, which often takes the form of experimentation, we produce initial conditions and we measure the success of operations. It is at the level of the observations laid down in the basic statements (Basissätze) that empiricism would like to anchor the objectivist illusion: to him, they provide us with immediate data owing objective evidence and without any interference of subjectivity. But in reality, the statements are not copies of facts themselves. On the contrary, they express the success or failure of operations that we have undertaken. We can say that the facts and that the relations between them are captured on a descriptive mode. But this way of talking does not conceal that, by themselves, facts significant for the experimental sciences are only resulting from a given organisation of our experiment in the area where the instrumental activity is performed" (The technology and science as ideology © 1968, Gallimard p. 146-147). This is a first step towards a genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, the words themselves that are the statements are not neutral. They themselves are prerequisites for our experience.
The realization of an experiment is always the result not only of intent, but also a defined scientific framework. This framework can be consistent with the official paradigm as well as contradicting it. The experiment is conditioned by an intention as part of one or the other of these two approaches. The experimental devices themselves are not neutral. The measuring devices are impregnated with the existing paradigm. But above all, what Habermas does not say is that the statements are themselves impregnated with this paradigm. The words that compose it are defined within the same paradigm. The meaning given to them is not separated from the vision of the things inherent to the paradigm. The worst is that this paradigm may contain so old statements that they are considered as fully natural. This really is the case of the magnetic field of the electric currents that would result from the translation of electrons. The first reaction to questioning this two centuries old premise is the deepest disbelief.
This position of Habermas, quite old, is different from that expressed in his most recent books. He ranked behind communicational consensus. This position differs from that of Kuhn in the procedure. In fact, Kuhn has not raised the issue of the procedure. The most formal approval process is the group of experts. It is believed that a group of experts acquires because of the group, a capacity of independence that each individual member can not claim. In technological fields, the group has real superiority. It accumulates experiment. The risks of errors are minimised. But experts are unfortunately conditioned by their common technological knowledge. The group limits the error. It has only a relative independence. The situation is improved by the addition of experts in independent fields. It comes to a judgement humanly acceptable. The absolute independence of the "pure reason" is an unattainable perfection. We must deal with the reality of "practical reason". Perfection is not denied by this relativism. It is recognised for what it is: an absolute. And we are pull always towards more perfection. One may certainly found a better procedure than the expanded expert group or any other existing communicational procedure. This is what I understand in Habermas.
Feyerabend did not accept any universal methodology rules. Anarchist of knowledge, he was opposed to the vision based on performance. First supporter of relativism, "the validity of a claim relates to an individual or a social group", he took later on a more nuanced position: "cultures are more or less entities with their own closed standards and procedures. They have an intrinsic value" (Tuer le temps, © Le Seuil, 1996, p.191). Thinkers, scientists, immediately rejected the application of this position in science. How so? There is only one pure Science. It is universal. This principle is beyond the core of Lakatos. The truth is accessed by pure Science. This truth is accessed and not subjected to changes. Science, pure Science, would have a kind of end exactly as for history for Marxists?
Ramsey argued that "a belief is a kind of guide for action, and a belief is true if it is useful." This recurrence of the Anglo-Scottish approach has been challenged recently by Dokic and Engel: "failure may be due not to a false belief, but to ignorance". We know that Ramsey was at his death in the process of reviewing its position of youth, so to speak, he was not 27 years old.
Putnam was one of the first philosophers to address the information revolution. The inventor of functionalism stated in the sixties that the mind is a machine built on the model of computers. It would be merely functional, able only to deal with signs. This concept is the basis of developments wrongly known as artificial intelligence. The boasting Stock Exchange followed this new fashion. The fall was in proportion to the dream. There remains, however, some nice ideas including the relational database systems and search engines. But Putman reflected since. He took a more Cartesian approach of the human spirit. A few lines are devoted further to his new point of view, breaking with the analytical philosophies.
Kuhn thought that a set of "ideas and practices permeate the minds at some point". He call that the "current paradigm". As soon as problems accumulate, and a new paradigm is proposed, there would be an abrupt change of paradigm: a scientific revolution. We will recognise, of course, one of the dogmas of Marxist doctrine, inspired by the Hegelian dialectic. The "quantitative accumulation" generates a "qualitative leap". You can put such naivety among fossils. Unfortunately, it still affects deeply the current thinking, especially in scientific circles, which, for once, stand largely behind the intellectual renewal characterising philosophy.
It never happened that an entire paradigm, characterising an epoch, was abruptly replaced. A paradigm, first, is not a homogeneous whole. It consists of a juxtaposition of two classes of data, but distinct.
The first class is related to the facts, the experimental results. It is absurd to doubt absolutely of facts. Pyrrhonism leads to naught. It is stupid to question the Archimedes' principle, Torricelli's and Pascal's atmospheric experiments, Lavoisier's chemistry. It is equally futile to doubt that Michelson's experiment shows the inability of the Lorentz' ether, to doubt that the Maxwell's equations are invariant in the transformation of the same Lorentz. I add here a subclass of the facts, the results of mathematical calculations.
These are facts. Are facts absolutely unquestionable? Certainly not. They are reasonably indisputable. You could assign a probability according to the wishes of Cournot. The facts are very likely. One might suspect the bad faith or intent in those who seek to doubt them. "Auschwitz is the most real reality." The Gulag, the Dalstroï, its lethal sister of the Kolyma, and Pol Pot as well. Budapest, Prague, Tienanmen: order maintained by heavy machine-guns mounted on marxist tanks. The massacre of Kronstadt: thousands of unemployed workers and landed naval troops, the lumpen-proletariat, crushed by the red, the original sin of Trotskyites. All very "real realities."
Alain reports these words of Hegel looking at the Alps, "it is so". Alain accuses him not to be convinced enough when writing his Phenomenology of Mind. I did not find those words in Hegel. Alain wants to tell us that perception does not disappoint. A blow to the eye produces a glow, like light. The glow is not doubtful. But the perception is interpreted by the mind. It is also the problem of the perception of a cube: we do not perceive a cube. We receive an object over the retina, with shadows and various dimensions. This perception is true. The spirit judges the perception and thinks it is a cube. Was it really a cube? Where is the criterion of the judgement? It is the question of Kant.
The same problem arises with time. What time? What is doing the relativist? He invites us to see the difficulty of measuring a length, and rightly so! How could we be assured of the coincidence of the ends of the length to be measured? It is the condition of validity of the measure. In fact, there is always some time between the two observations. Yet there is no means of instantaneous communication. Conversely, the relativist asserts he is able to measure time! But the measurement of time begins with the measurement of length, the wavelength of the atom used. The measurement of time is then counting beats. Where is the time in these two actions: a length inaccessible? A number? Alain did not go into this detailed analysis. He only said that "the time has no speed (Alain, Entretiens au bord de la mer © Gallimard, 1949, p.106) and repeated it in many of his propos (31 October 1921, 12 April 1922, 12 March 1923 , 25 February 1933, 1 January 1936, 14 February 1936): "we will never find a prime number between 13 and 17, we will never find two simultaneous moments and we will never find a time slower than another." The ban was introduced, the lese-Relativity duly punished. Silence! Bow, it's the science that goes! Time allows for measuring speed. Yet, if the time had a flow rate, by what would measure its flow rate speed? In what time is running in?
The sequence of events is the basis of the task of the historian and the epistemologist. However, the sequence itself includes a judgement. They are no more only facts. Of course, some facts may have been recorded, and, as such, the sequence can be a matter of fact. The historian and the epistemologist soar then to causes. Their views are part of the class of theories. This is the second class of the paradigm.
Both classes of the paradigm are irreconcilable as regard doubt. The class of facts is not in the scope of Cartesian doubt. It is absurd to doubt absolutely facts. It is equally absurd to absolutely refuse to doubt theories, postulates, assumptions, and axioms. But it is true, some assumptions are at the confines of facts and some facts are at the confines of assumptions.
Kuhn pointed out that historically, it has never happened that a theory is rejected because it has been disproved. He claimed that it is necessary that the theory can be replaced that is to say that there are other proposals. Mach had a more pleasant position: "Innovation has for strongest opponents all those who succeeded in the previous conditions, and for lukewarm defenders those who are likely to succeed in the new conditions." He also reportedly said that a theory does not disappear following a contrary experiment, but by the death of its author, and the arrival of new ideas.
The paradigm of Aristotle was denied for two thousand years by a fraction of thinkers. Essential theses have been rejected and replaced by Ptolemy. At the same time, a multitude of theories has clustered around what Lakatos calls the "hard core". The discovery of Archimedes was integrated into the Aristotelian paradigm. Copernicus did not challenge the "hard core" of the Aristotelian paradigm. This core had three basic components, the nature of perfect circular motion inherent to the ether, the inherent linear motion of the two elements: fire and earth, and the correlative existence of a centre of the world. For Copernicus, the centre was the world of the Sun, not the Earth. Copernicus kept the idea that the world would have a centre. He did not change the other two Aristotelian postulates.
That consistency with the theory of Kuhn is not surprising. This was the very basis of his thoughts. But there remains more than a part of the "hard core" of the paradigm of Aristotle. Associated theses quantitatively accumulated, according to the marxist vocabulary, were independent of the "hard core". There has been in no way that marxists call a "qualitative leap". The paradigm has not been replaced as a whole, as claimed Kuhn. Not only the facts, the experimental results, have been preserved, but also all the related theories. Galileo was still faced to the Aristotelian paradigm. In fact, there remained only a part of the "hard core" of the paradigm of Aristotle
Galileo looks at the satellites of Jupiter. Bodies are turning around Jupiter: Jupiter is also a centre of the world, so there are several centres in the world, which is impossible. The satellites of Jupiter have a circular motion, which is not the ether motion of Aristotle. The experiment of Pisa already undermined the second postulate of Aristotle. The rest of the "hard core" was untenable. It explodes. Most scholars and theologians of that time opposed Galileo. Conversely, the pope himself and many cardinals supported Galileo.
Those scientists opposed to Galileo have questioned his observations and even his telescope. Blinding is the main cause of errors. It's self-esteem as well, refusing to be wrong. This attitude is reinforced, as psychologists have shown, by the group effect, known as bystander effect in situations of aggression. Men emphasize the group's opinion on their own perception.
Finally, the paradigm of Aristotle did not collapse in front of a new paradigm: Galileo has not proposed a new paradigm. He just destroyed the last part of the "hard core". He has not proposed any alternative theory. This has been the work of Descartes; himself later on replaced by Newton. It then took half a millennium to reach a new set of assumptions gathered in an improbable paradigm: the pure Science paradigm. It is gathering contradictions, inconsistency and it is finally swinging between the relativistic determinism and the quantum probabilism. A monster!
There is simply no more any paradigm in the meaning of Kuhn. He was well aware: "It is not rare in history that several schools exist in a relationship of opposition and mutual ignorance." So the notion of Kuhn's paradigm is false. There has never been at any time, consensus on the general class of theories. The class of theories has always been multifaceted, paradoxical, and inconsistent. One could say that the theories and the many associated assumptions and postulates are coexisting paradigms, but irreconcilable. Conversely, facts form a unique paradigm, shared with the many paradigms of theories. The paradigm of facts is not replaceable, at most sometimes revised. The problem is the distinction between facts and theories. This is discussed in another book.
Lyotard's position is not really clear: "There are no longer absolute and universal rules or conditions that are valid for all statements. Verifiability or falsifiability are only valid for scientific, cognitive, constative statements". The exceptions seem to me both excessive and without limits. The term "statement" is not limited in any way with the facts. Postulates are they verifiable? This is not serious.
Chalmers has achieved a critical synthesis of views on the validity of scientific theories. It begins with a criticism of inductivism as a means of knowledge. Induction is the basis for the justification of scientific reasoning. "The general statements contain assertions about the properties of an aspect of the universe. In contrast to the singular statements, they cover all the events of a particular type, in all places and at all times" (Chalmers, Qu’est-ce que la science ? © La Découverte, 1987 p 24). Chalmers continued: "the laws and theories that are scientific knowledge are broad statements of this type, called universal statements. The conditions of validity of these inductive statements are their high number, repeatability in a variety of conditions and there should be no contrary statements. Chalmers denied any logical value in these conditions.
From the logic standpoint, the great number and variety of conditions provide no guarantee against the exception. This is the Russel's turkey. It had inductive knowledge to be fed every morning at nine o'clock in all environmental conditions encountered in the livestock where it lives. But, the day before Christmas, nine hours, it has his head cut. Chalmers also recalls the inability, shown first by Hume, to deduct induction from experiment. The repetitiveness of induction can not demonstrate the induction, as this demonstration uses inevitably induction. Yet it retains the position of Popper on the possibility of a theory to be rejected by the existence of exceptions, this is not at all the case. The dead turkey can not change its theory. I do not know if one keeps breeding turkeys, as they did for trout in Dauphiné. Imagine such a breeder. It will educate all the turkeys for a new theory. Turkeys of the farm are fed at nine hours until their death, the day before Christmas. This theory has been tested on thousands of turkeys and even on breeding. It is scientific. But it is not. The farmer faces strong competition from imported turkeys. He converted to fatty liver. Everything is changed. He does not wait for Christmas. You can never say there is no exception, no unpredictable phenomenon. The logic is not a matter of concessions, which would resolve with colleagues, during a congress, even though would it be international.
Chalmers has shown that "the logic does not always reject the theory in conflict with the observation." He based his position on the possibility of rejection "of a statement of fallible observation, while maintaining the fallible theory with which it comes into conflict" (Chalmers, What is science? © La Découverte, 1987 p 107).
But logic never requires such a rejection. The rejection is, in fact, never produced on the basis of experiment, even repeated on many cases independent of each other, much less on the basis of logic. The partisans of a theory keep until their death, hope of counter-falsifications of falsifications. The logic can not help, since the fall of a theory has nothing to do with logic. The theories are first subject to human passions. The notion of fall of a theory is also a naive idea. When should we say that a theory is wrong and this other one acceptable? Should a survey be done and a decision made by the majority?
Great scholars, Kepler and Tycho Brahe did not accept the extremely complex system of Copernicus, with his three motions of the Earth. Kepler has only accepted the central position of the Sun. Like Copernic, Kepler has rejected a part of the system of Aristotle. Kepler showed that the system of Copernicus introduced an increase in the number of the celestial sphere carriers and was more complex than that of Ptolemy. Galileo has not taken any of the assumptions of Copernicus. He said that there were centres of the world everywhere. He did not take the idea of Copernicus placing the Sun in the centre of the world. He eliminated the theory of celestial sphere carriers, theory shared by Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Galileo has not adopted the Copernic's three motions of the Earth. Kepler wrote that those motions are understandable. Galileo thought it was nothing left from Aristotle. Nothing remained as well from Copernicus, despite appearances. But most scholars of his time did not want to listen. A new generation was to address the issue without preconceived ideas. This is a basic lesson that gives reason to some extent to Vico.
Science is primarily a case of men, subject to moods: self-esteem first. It is a case of human passion before being a matter of logic. The logic finally prevail. At the cost of how many fights, how much hate? And everything has to start again, always. Rolls your stone, Sisyphus!
Chalmers concludes his analysis of previous theories: "Lakatos was to give a rationalist view of science, but he failed, while Kuhn denied he was to give a relativistic point of view [in the meaning of related to relativism] but nevertheless provided one " (Qu’est-ce que la science ? © La Découverte, 1987 p.181).
His thesis is summed up by his own words: "a science is developing a bit like a cathedral is built; it results of collaboration of many workers who share their know-how" (p.193). He called that objectivism. Objectivism sees science as a social practice. The individual has only partial knowledge. He can not imagine all the consequences of his ideas. He does not understand facts as another individual. He is mistaken in his own inferences. One should not be limited to the overall presentation of the person who is regarded as a founder, Newton, Maxwell. One must integrate the sum of experiments, assumptions, and mathematical justifications, at every moment. This sum is living and is going forward somehow. It is fed continuously by the discoveries due to chance as well as specific targets, by mathematical calculations, by new ideas, while errors and facts are abandoned on the roadside. Chalmers believes that science can even rummage in the trash and renew facts or ideas left in the past.
This approach is only applicable, however, since Galileo. It was needed first to introduce experiment and mathematisation. Therefore, science is no more than a river, not always peaceful, but flowing! Of course there are meanders. Science may come back close to a previous passage, but it does not rise back. This vision is that of Marx, and Chalmers did not hide it: "the historical materialism of Marx is an objectivist theory" (p. 198).
The social and progressist vision of Chalmers leads the existence of many teams led by different people and starting from a diversity of perspectives. In this context, the changing of theory is based "on its level of fertility" (p.210). The teams working on non-fruitful models will not find anything and will be phased out in favour of teams who have chosen most fruitful routes. We again dive in the depths of the horror of Darwinian selection!
That is the view of an intellectual cloistered in his university and totally alien to the realities of public or private scientific research. Fertility is rigged by the influence. The most used criterion is still the number of communications. This is the realm of the struggle for life. All means are good. The worst thing in all this is that communications are judged by peer review. The Soviet totalitarian system is the archetype of the system of Chalmers. It is not only illegal, but impossible to get out of bed of the river. Chalmers gives the science a value per se. He is for change; he will never change, to recall a communist word that had his moment of fame. By allowing young engineers, without a priori, to develop information technology in a backyard garage, the liberal system has propelled humanity into another era. In this era, the Internet era, an engineer with no means, without any authorisation, approval or support of any kind, proposes a system of the world that completely reverses the current scientific view of the world on the basis of the experimental paradigm. It is impossible for marxist thinkers as Kuhn and Chalmers. The mathematical and experimental bases of pure Science make its foundations unalterable, irrefutable.
Onfray says something surprising that shows that a conditioning of thought to leading positions is sadly inevitable: "Sometimes, some truth (in physics, biology, chemistry, history, facts, dates, formulas) do not suffer the discussion, because extensively repeated experiments attest their validity and certify them everywhere and at all times, but outside of this small capital of irrefutable truth, there is only changes. (Antimanuel of philosophie © Bréal, 2001 p. 297). I would like to see the list of those scientific truths and unquestionable theories! Raymond Allais asks us to challenge one of these great truths, which dates back to early last century. Is he in the list? Diogenes would not have this weakness. Would I be more cynical than Onfray? I absolutely deny any absolute truth even scientific, regardless of the number of witnesses, whatever the number of repetitions of that proofing experiment, because, according to Alain’s idea, "experiment is thought, it is interpreted by reason". I accept the result of experiment; I doubt the proof. The reason would be infallible? Diogenes outright laughs!
Paradoxically, apparently, I am less sceptical about history. That facts have actually taken place on known dates, indisputable, is what may be sure in many cases. Similarly, countless experiments and many facts are indisputable: stones fall, the Earth revolves around the Sun and there are a multitude of proven facts. Is this the problem of scientific truth? The facts themselves are related to memory, in a very general way. The truth is relative to reason. Talking about the truth of facts has no philosophical meaning. We can only investigate whether the interpretation of the facts is true or not. The search for truth has meaning only in relation to reason and not in relation to records of fact, traces of the past. I know that a fact may be an interpretation. To confines of facts are assumptions!
The search for the truth encompasses the Cartesian doubt. Cartesian doubt is not about the facts: "The thought sees it has a right to challenge the truth of what it does not perceive distinctly" (Descartes, Principes de Philosopie, Girard Libraire, 1681 p. 9). Parallel to the distinction between simple ideas and compound ideas, Descartes separates the two classes of the paradigm. One may limits to the excerpts that suit. The bad faith or ignorance mentioned by Dokic and Engel, can not deceive sustainably. Cartesian doubt concerns the class of theories. In no way the class of facts.
Realists, mainly physicalist, reject Kant's transcendental world: how could absolute concepts exist in the brain? This is the paradox of Kant. It was already a question of the Sophist in Plato's dialogue. There is no answer. We can ask, however, an insidious question. Physicalist! How can you deny access to the transcendence, to the absolute, by our mind, and accept the presence of the absolute in the experimental world?
Even if we accept this inconsistency, how sensitive perceptions, relative by nature, could have access to the absolute? It's the equivalent of the famous problem of "third man" at the level of the experimental world.
If the absolute existed in the experimental world, our senses should have a transcendental dimension to perceive it, and the brain, a transcendental part to host absolute. We think getting out of the impasse, the cave, by the conceptualisation process. That would be a transcendental function, transforming the perceptions into absolute, since we think of absolute. This is for instance the absolute celerity of light, absolute speed actually acceded by the photon, assume to be a reality of the experimental world. This is for instance the many invariants of physics, accessed and real too. How that transcendental function would process all those absolute? They are already absolute! They should not be perceived as absolute, since they should be conceptualised.
We are told that we can no longer think like before! We are no longer at the prescientific age or even less at the age of archaeological science. Mathematics has been introduced throughout in physics. They are a bulwark against misinterpretations, a guarantee of certainty. There is no more room in pure Science for feelings and impressions. We are at the age of Science.
A postulate is it something other than a conviction? The result of a mathematical approach may be certain. But postulates and axioms are not the results of the mathematical approach. These are all starting points raised by will and not given by themselves.
The alternative paradigmes
The list of dissidents (The Worldwide list of dissident scientists) updated in 2015 includes just over 8000 names.
Almost all of these 8000 dissidents clearly belongs to the scientific media. Some professors of philosophy were included in the list for the strength of their critical arguments, especially supporters of the analytical school of philosophy.
There are more than 3000 PhD, doctors in science, doctor engineers or graduates engineers, including 1400 university professors or assistant professors. Note that these figures are certainly far below reality. The position of Chinese scientists, particularly, is not easily determined. In addition, most scientific journals do not give the author’s titles. All the others are also scientific and generally with a level equivalent to master. The rare exceptions are some followers of the new energies without fundamental theoretical knowledge.
At least 751 dissidents authors died. There are certainly many more, but it is difficult to highlight it on the Internet.
The first finding is the high number of sites in French language, opened in Canada, Belgium and Switzerland compared to the low number sites open in France. The very limited number of sites in France may be explained, perhaps, by the existence for a long time of a kind of censorship somewhat contrary to the Convention on Human Rights. This organisation, worthy of the darkest periods of the Inquisition, the Committee on the Orthodoxy of Physics in the Internet, has suspended its operations after erasing the content of sites located in Switzerland and Canada.
A dozen dissidents are not in the Internet. They have published works, sometimes not found on the market. It should be recalled that only authors born after 1905 were selected
It should be noted that an overwhelming majority of the alternative systems has been developed by specialists of electromagnetism. There are some specialists of data-processing. Five systems only belong to Fluid Mechanics specialists. Three have an Internet site. The other two published hard printed books. One of them is passed away. The consequence of this majority is a large number of electrical systems. All forces are the result of the electric charges and, in particular gravity is produced by an electrical phenomenon (in general differential) to explain the absence of gravitational repulsion. These electrical universes are often linked back to the ideas of Tesla who receives a posthumous dedication (mentioned by 222 authors). There are 503 electric universes, part of which with ether. This category is distributed among the various other categories.
1887 dissidents propose alternative theories to current official paradigm combining the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and General, supported by a multitude of related theories dedicated to countless unexplained experimental results even paradoxical as Sagnac experiment.
They are divided into four large categories:
- 550 systems are based upon ether. They are classified into four categories: the first two categories include ethers of energetic nature (80) or geometrical (30). The other two offer types Lorentz elastic solids (52) or fluid ethers (387). These fluid ethers were divided into eight subcategories: Fluids ethers type Yarkowski (86), type LeSage (80), Newton (41), Descartes (21), superfluid (12), plasma (7), an ether made of two fluids (1) and other unspecified (140). Note that some of the energy ethers include ring or eddies structures without thinking it is fluid. In addition, some authors consider that their theory is an ether, while they assume the existence of particles or waves filling the space, but without mutual interactions as in solids or fluids.
- 485 systems without ether are divided into two subcategories. The systems that consider gravity as an aspect of electromagnetism (147), those based on the presence of information in space (120), systems that consider the universe as a fractal (45), who support the Mach approach (44), systems based on a modification of Newton's law (41) and even with an anti-gravity (32), those who view the universe as a hologram (26), systems which take the emissive theory of light Ritz (22), and finally the systems attributing gravitation to the expansion of the stars as part of the expansion of the Universe (8).
- 570 systems have been gathered in a class qualified as innovative. They are extremely varied from an equivalence of mass and time, and the existence of a fifth dimension to a time with several dimensions. Were added to this category theory assuming the existence of several coexisting universes (9), a quantified time (25), a Higgs boson ether (1).
- Finally, theories go beyond the theories of Relativity (210) or Quantum Mechanics (72). The authors are considered dissidents because their theories are not generally recognized by other scientists into the official paradigm.
The very general assertions can not be regarded as theories. There is thus 356 supporters authors of an electric or magnetic Universe. They generally give no details. First, those who believe that gravity is electromagnetic (162) and theories that assigns a power source (142). Advocates of theories at all, the famous TOE, theories of everything (52) do not give more details except that it is always an electromagnetic unification.
It may be noted that among all the alternative proposals, 278 systems include assumptions particles.
- 89 systems assume the particles are waves.
- 81 systems assume the particles are vortex or spirals.
- 49 systems assume the particles are associated pairs.
- 38 systems assume the particles are rings.
- 14 systems assume the particles are propellers.
- 5 systems assume the particles are well.
- 1 system assumes that the particles are bubbles (+ 1 are also well).
- 1 system assumes that the particles are sources.
The following chapters present more detail some of these categories of alternative theories.
The categories of alternative theories are more or less complying with the experiments explained in the two chapters of the forth part. Twenty experiments in each of these 2 chapters were selected. It is obvious that all the theories explain the Michelson's experience. It has not been retained in the conformance index evaluation. Conversely, the Miller results obtained with the Michelson's interferometer, analysed by Allais, are parts of these 40 experiments.
It is equally clear that the logical requirements are not part of this experimental paradigm. This applies to the principle of Relativity. This is also the case of the unification of forces. This requirement receives an almost universal consensus, but it is in no case, an experimental fact.
An indicator of compliance has been adopted for each experiment: 2 scores when the compliance is quantitative, 1 score when qualitative only, 0.5 score when unanswered and 0 non-compliant.
An overall complex index of compliance from 0 to 10 was calculated so that a theory, which would explain nothing, would get 0 overall score.
The index of the paradigm of pure Science including quantum and both Relativity doctrines is 6 scores. This is not surprising. This index results from selected experiments. For example, the paradigm of pure Science is considered inconsistent with the Sagnac's experiment and Allais' analysis. Conversely, the paradigm of pure Science enjoys many dedicated assumptions and ad hoc invariant values that do not result of quantum and relativistic doctrines themselves. Without these multiple nudges in the right direction, we would see the index close to the abyss.
The best index is 9 scores. It was obtained by a Descartes type of ether theory, in which light and gravity have the same fluid support. It should be noted that the absence of quantitative explanation in few cases, prevents this theory to obtain the maximum.
These are the only indices given in this book to specific theories. Other indices hereafter are average value for each of the eight categories of systems of the world presented in the following chapters.
The categories with ether fluids have the best indices: Descartes type categories and type LeSage indices 6. Ether with vortices and rings category obtains 5, Newton type ether and Lorentz type ether 4.
Unified systems of particles have an index of 3.
Innovative theories have common characteristics that allow them, curiously, to reach the index 3. The authors share a good knowledge of the experimental paradigm. This is probably the result of a deeper reflection, in response to strong criticism they are subjected. They tried to find answers, at least qualitatively.
The lowest index is 2. This is the index of alternative theories in the category of unification by waves, without ether. This category does not provide any explanation for most of the forty selected experiments, and is weighed down by incompatibilities with several others. Theories in this category suffer generally of few developments. The index system is certainly very unfair to them, in contrast to the Lorentz type ethers. In this category, we could take the best of each system, trying to avoid incompatibilities.
Information theories conformity index has not been evaluated because they cover only explanation of some experiments they are intended for. They do not form paradigms alone but only associated to one of the previous categories.
The criteria are certainly debatable. They reflect the fundamental problem today. It is the failure to take into account the theorem of angular moment at the level of both particles and stars. On the other hand, the results would have been much more dramatic had it been taken into account the impossibility of a fourth dimension, which results from the application of this theorem, and some requirements of pure logic developed in the first part of this work.
This chapter includes very various visions of the system of the world. I will not give details on several models using more than three dimensions, not temporal. One of these models has been included in the category of Descartes’ ether type. In this case a fourth dimension acts as an outlet for condensing ether. In this particular case, there is no movement of matter in the fourth dimension. These multi-dimensional spaces are impossible. They are incompatible with the angular momentum theorem. Bodies must be absolutely motionless in all dimensions beyond three. The authors have placed in their multidimensional space, various types of components that belong to other categories.
The first type is not strictly alternative theories. These are attempts to rescue of Special and General Relativity through aggressive treatment with a lot of developments exclusively mathematical. Some of these authors are attempting the dialectician famous qualitative leap, the leap forward. The unfortunate string theory would have entered this category. It is now discarded in the dustbin of the history of science.
The problem of any leap forward is to know where one starts. If one is already faced to a yawning chasm of course the risk is great enough to be precipitated down. All these authors remain deeply committed to the unification of forces, of course. It is not scientifically correct to deny this progressist dogma.
Clusters of other innovative theories are very artificial. In reality, all proposed paradigms are different. The differences do not result from theory developments, but from starting positions fundamentally different. It follows that each author works on his side and is unable to use the results of other authors. It has been possible to consider broadly convergent lines in the critics of the official pure Science paradigm. All conciliation attempts in the field of alternative proposals end with clashes more or less violent.
I should however mention several theories that I would call binary or dialectical. All forms of dissociation into pairs have been imagined. The best known is the asymmetry used by Quantum Mechanics. This is obviously a relic of the old myth dialectical: the struggle of opposites. Actually, there is a big difference between the concepts of asymmetry and opposite. Historically, il must be reminded that Mao Tse Dong opposed the symmetries and breaks of symmetry of Quantum Mechanics, which seemed to him contrary to dialectical materialism, the foundation of Marxists’ thought, provided we can speak of thought in their case. This was the origin of the powerful dissident Chinese school of physics. This explains the large number of Chinese dissident sites on the Internet. A poll taken ten years ago in Peking Science University showed that over 50% of education staff believe that the current official paradigm is wrong and shall be completely rebuilt.
In these binary theories particles are grouped in inseparable and coexisting pairs. Some of these are orbital pairs; others just of opposite natures. There is a theory with two types of photons: real and virtual. They move randomly. They make, in fact, a kind of fluid ether. If I understand correctly, this system would be connected to the Newtonian type. Their virtual character places them within innovative systems.
Another system uses particles with imaginary charged ie and -ie, in addition to the charges e and -e. Newton's law is the law of fluxes. The author then uses the properties of solid angles to justify the law by a flux of particles emanating from the stars. Energetic mergers of these imaginary particles, in the mathematical sense, with the other particles, allow for explaining the attraction of gravity and other forces of nature. Thus this theory is unified.
Among other forms of differentiation to form pairs of particles, we may include, in no particular order: the infraluminal and superluminal particles, the positive and negative masses, the contra-helical structures, the sink and source particles or the gravitational and anti gravitational particles. There are also the real and imaginary particles within the meaning of complex numbers, already mentioned as regards the electric charge, but applied to the mass, to the energy or to the fields.
Instead of a differentiation of particles, another kind of dialectic approach is to assume in balance or imbalance universes. Other forms of anisotropies have been imagined as the origin of gravitation. We also found the coexistence of twin worlds that fall outside of the dialectic of opposites. This approach is in line with the trend to the diversity that characterises the thinking of the twenty-first century after one century of progressist totalitarism inherited from positivism.
Inspired by the jets of quasars and galaxies, dissidents propose to grant such jets to particles or atoms. In one case, the jet first enters the particles before being ejected after turning 360 degrees inside.
It should mention the quantum temptation among many authors. They quantify either the time or space or speed or acceleration as well.
A small group of dissidents are linked to the MOND theory. This theory proposes a modification of Newton's law with distance. These dissidents are distinguished between them by the shape of the change. One of these authors does not propose to modify Newton's law, but obtains the same result by considering that energy is distributed in space. The absorption of energy by the matter leads to a modification of the effect of gravity on the body. The advantage of this proposal is to justify the change in Newton's law.
In the same vein, some authors propose an expansion of the ether or vacuum energy together with the expansion of the universe. The result is a variation of gravitation. The same result is obtained by authors assuming that gravity decreases with time. Moreover, some have found that the expansion of the stars, they consider correlative to the expansion of the Universe, gives a kind of gravitation. There is however a problem, if this expansion is constant it does not give any acceleration. An elevator at a constant speed produces obviously no acceleration. We feel ones weight only at start and arrival. It must be assumed that the expansion is accelerating. We can resume the relativist response to their paradoxes: why not!
A very amazing hypothesis allows an author to obtain interesting results. Photons are not particles, but holes in the ether. These holes move at the speed of light. This postulate is a weakness in the system. They have a wave nature causes by their displacement in the ether, like a ship at sea, accompanied by waves. There are no examples of holes propagating in fluids excepted the regular vortex streets of von Karmann. However, these vortices move with the surrounding fluid. They are not accompanied by waves. The holes have a particle effect related to their discrete nature. The gravity results from winds of ether. It raises the many issues that were addressed in the Descartes’ class of ethers.
We just mention the holes in the ether. There are also holes in the fields should they be electric, magnetic or gravitational. This is an approach inspired by the theory of semiconductors.
A futuristic projection is the fractal vision. Each level of matter is the reproduction in larger scale of the lower level like in fractal pictures. It was Aristotle's system in the field of biology. The similar is coming from the similar. The seed of the tree contains a small tree. In one case, a fractal universe is actually contained in the particles of the higher level instead of being merely embedded in the universe upper level. The macrostructure is a copy of the microstructure. These Russian dolls are hard to defend. The authors therefore avoid venturing more into the questioning of the paradigm of pure Science official.
This fractal approach was already present in the mythical theory of the Bohr atom. The Bohr atom was like a solar system with planets. In this new perspective, the rule is general. However, the forces acting at each level can not be of the same kind even if they are similar. They are necessarily different, at least because they are not at the same fractal level. This approach contains the germ of the idea that the unification of forces may well be an illusion. We understand that these authors deny this diktat with caution.
We must mention finally more philosophical positions, inspired either by the Cartesian thesis of the identity of space and the existence or by the Heidegger’s thesis of the identity of time and existence. It is also to identify the time either to energy or speed or even acceleration.
At these extremely varied assumptions must be added another factor of differentiation. The theories, which are not unified, connect gravitation and electromagnetic forces at different levels of the constitution of the universe. Each level is assigned different speeds of propagation of phenomena. The difference concerns the order of magnitude of these speeds, not the speeds themselves. The gap is the same as the difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound. For some dissidents, the gravitation is characterised by a velocity an order of magnitude smaller than the magnitude of the celerity of light. They are always those who insist on finding Lorentz’ formulas prohibiting speeds above light. For others, it is the opposite. Their goal is to show that energy can exist infinitely larger than the famous mc2. Between the two, very few authors separate the actions of electromagnetic from wave propagation such as light, which would have nothing electromagnetic by themselves.
In one way or another, many authors of innovative theories adopt or find the Lorentz’ group. There are two types of notable exceptions. The hypothesis of tachyons, particles faster than light, is echoed by many of these innovative theories with some interesting results. Conversely, some theories consider a gradual reduction of the speed of light during displacement of photons by a kind of aging. These assumptions are intended to explain particular phenomena, in particular the cosmological redshift.
We have finally to mention an extreme case, which is to reject the concept of mass. It is also an issue that appears in several sites, but there are very few concrete proposals. One proposal involves a flow of one type of particles that pass through other types of particles at the speed of light. The resulting effect is a drag, which is the inertia, as opposed to opposite effects of other particles not passing through. They cause the various types of forces. This first approach does not really remove the inertial mass. The drag involves a mass. An improvement is to no more speak of drag, but only of relative velocities. As the particles do not act the same way, it results different movements. It is unclear how these actions could be conceived without inertial mass.
These latter approaches may seem audacious. However, they pose a real problem. It was decided that mass is a fundamental unit instead of force. However, the mass is never found by itself. We do not find experimentally forces either, but only balances or movements. The change of motion, we found experimentally, requires a cause that is called force. The very same mass occurs in various circumstances, in shocks, for example, without intervention of any force before the contact. The choice of the mass as the fundamental unit is appropriate. Forces and masses are mathematical concepts used to calculate the motions. We speak of forces of nature because we have no knowledge of the cause of their action. The thesis of pure Science is that it is fully useless to investigate for the cause of forces, to investigate the cause behind the mathematical formulas of the forces.
I thought, naively, that the aim of science was getting into the mechanism of causes. The collapse of pure Science gives me hope not to have tried in vain not to die stupid.
This chapter includes systems based upon ethers common to matter and to information, and even to thinking with a parapsychological nature. Some of these systems have been included in previous system categories. In these cases, the transport of information aspect is only a limited aspect of the system.
The presence of information in space is necessitated within the official paradigm by the results of some troubling experiments. Generally, these systems have their origin in problems with Quantum Mechanical and more precisely with weak lighting interference and the Aspects’ experiment. The various assumptions required to explain these phenomena within what has been called quantum entanglement. How a photon passing through a slit of an interferometer knows that it shall go to a stripe which will be white? Should it have an opportunity to meet another photon when hitting the screen, it could perhaps be informed of the phase shift. Information coming from other photons is absolutely necessary. How a photon could interfere with itself? We are told the presence probability explains everything! Who can say honestly that he understands? Even if it is a problem of probability of presence, it shall have information from the other photon. Pure Science does not seek to be understood. It seeks mathematical law. It found. This is a probabilistic result. There is nothing to add. This approach has been significantly strengthened by the famous Aspect’s experiment which involves states of polarisation.
Such systems include authors who have oriental visions of the cosmos or biblical and Quranic visions as well. The Quran strictly adheres to the world system of Aristotle, like indeed the Thomist view, which has still many supporters mainly in creationist circles. Most of these few visions come from the powerful Evangelical movement, opposed to aspects of pure Science as well as to the Darwinian theory of evolution by struggling and eliminating for the benefit to the most adapted species. It may be recalled here for their defence on this point at least, that Darwin is not the inventor of the positivist idea of species evolution. Darwin's theory deals only with the process of this evolution. His dialectical point of view was widespread in the marxist class struggle and the ideas emanating from Bourdieu’s thesis pasted from Max Weber visions.
The system based on the principle of Mach falls into this category. The relative positions of all stars, basis of the Mach’s system, is information that can be known at a distance only by the existence of an ether which affects the motion of bodies.
Unification by particles
Systems in this category involve a unification of electromagnetic forces and gravitation force on the basis of moving particles in empty space, i.e. a vacuum without ether. Some authors consider that their theory is an ether, as they presuppose the existence of particles filling space. But these particles do not form a medium. They are fully independent from each other. Ether is characterised either by a crystalline structure, or by the presence of particles kicking one another with stochastic properties. The Lorentz' ether is in the first case. Fluidic ethers are in the second case. This is not the case in this chapter.
The success of ethers stems from the fact that they explain the speed of light. The speed of waves in a fluid ether is the mean square speed of particles that make up the fluid. It is a fundamental outcome of the kinetic theory of gases. Continuum mechanics gives a similar result. It should be noted that the continuum qualification is quite inadequate. Steel is not a continuous medium. It is made of molecules distributed according to geometric structures including a multitude of microscopic fractures that explain its elasticity and the transmission of pressure waves.
The corpuscular view of light can not explain the celerity of light. This was the Newton's theory of light. It is the origin of the relativistic doctrine with the photon. Ritz also adopted the corpuscular vision in his ballistic theory. Ritz assumes that light is emitted at the speed of light relative to the source. By cons, for the Relativists, the speed of the photon is independent of the speed of source and of receiver. In all these cases, it is a law of Nature. It would be perfectly useless to seek an explanation.
Theories in this category are generally based upon the concepts of quantum field theory. The particles may have many forms. Most authors believe that the gravity result of combinations of electrical charges. There are thus inseparable pairs, moving on, creating fields of dipole or, more simply, the structures of the particles may create such fields. Gravitation is attributed to these fields, as opposed to electromagnetic fields created by simply moving charge.
There are thirty two proposals using anti-gravity. It should be remembered that anti-matter is different from the matter only because the electrical charges are reversed. But anti-matter is subject to gravitation exactly as matter. This anti-gravity is the direct result either of a type of particle or of the possibility of reducing mass. Some theories involving negative masses are classified in innovative theories.
An author within this unification by particles category proposes a theory based on the kinetic moments. The starting point is difficult to understand. How linear motion can include an angular momentum? Is it only a fact? Indeed, all stars turn around themselves while going over their orbit. But there is no causal link. Once accepted this premise, the differentiation that results is used to explain the various types of forces. Any differentiation serves the same purpose. The most used are the opposition and symmetry. The use of angular moment is more original.
Unification by waves
These unified systems consider that particles are waves. Ether would be useless. The theories assuming that particles are waves in ether are described in the following chapters. In this chapter, each individual particle is a wave train. Wave trains have limited size. Their support is either a kind of energy oscillating on itself or a limited number of particles bound within a small volume and affected by vibration. They move together like a naval squadron but these wave trains propagate in empty space, in vacuum. It is likely that these theories are based on the defunct string theory. Some, indeed, refer explicitly to string theory in order to better show the difference of approach. We never met extra dimensions to 3 dimensions of space within this category.
Theories based on self-standing wave trains, so to speak, are in the same situation as for photons. They give no explanation to their celerity of propagation. They have some difficulties as well for the corpuscular effect of light. A train of waves, isolated in space, has no logical reason to move at a determined speed. The situation is the same as for particles in the previous chapter. It is the worst for a wave theory. The authors attribute this speed to the wave nature of their wave trains.
Relativists justify the speed of light by increasing the mass. This is a limit, because the mass would reach infinite value at this speed. The misfortune is that the speed of light is accessed by the photon. The photons move actually at the celerity of light, which is existing physically within the experimental world. The absolute would be thus perceptible and measurable. Such an assumption is absurd from a logical standpoint, as we saw in the first part because measuring and perception are relations. A relationship can not involve an absolute, because the absolute is precisely by axiom or definition, as you want, that falls outside any relationship.
Relativists believe that the photon has no mass. But then, how this speed would be also a limit to the photon? If it has no mass, the justification by the limit no longer exists. It is a pure postulate. An arbitrary postulate, if you'll pardon this tautology rather coarse.
There is only one theory of this category that uses a differentiation. This is a state of vibration in phase or in phase opposition. This would result in an attraction or repulsion between trains of waves. A phenomenon of this kind exists for vortices in fluids. Perhaps the author refers to it? Yet it is difficult to understand how these actions can exist if there is no intermediary medium between the wave trains. Once admitted this possibility, one can obtain various types of forces, and even imagine more than existing, with a limited number of assumptions. The author involved applies the Lorentz' group as the most natural thing in the world. This is the case with most other proposals in this category.
This approach never fails to encounter difficulties. What about the transversal nature of light? The photon is a particle associated with electromagnetic wave; the vibration is transverse exactly like the electromagnetic vectors that represent the vibration.
These ondulatory systems typically separate the light from electromagnetic phenomena. Various phenomena of fluid mechanics or energetic particles are used to explain the electromagnetic forces. Many dissident authors do not see the need for the electromagnetic nature of light.
Light and waves, called electromagnetic, are emitted by electrons or other particles in their motion under the action of electromagnetic fields. Symmetrically, light and waves, called electromagnetic, have electromagnetic effects by moving electric charges in conductors such as antennas. One does not really see why these waves should, in themselves, have, in addition, an electromagnetic nature. This is the prototype of redundancy that should not be accepted in science. Most authors reject this vision, but more often without having really wanted to do so. It is their system that imposes a more rational approach.
The fact remains that the polarisation is a transversal property that is not inherent to the nature of wave phenomena. In the absence of explanation, it is rather surprising that relativists prohibit these authors to postulate such a nature of light. I know whom postulates for much more than that!
A general argument of the authors of corpuscular theory of light is that it does not behave like waves in fluids.
The authors of the systems of this chapter rely on the same argument. Waves in liquids are not rays. However, one of them used an interesting solution, which is often found in systems with ether. Unfortunately she died when she was developing her system. Instead of justifying her approach by a kind of postulate, Caroline Thompson proposed a solution to this problem founded upon interference. This solution is very difficult to implement without ether. Her waves are not the result of a pressure oscillation of ether. They are energetic waves propagating independently, although she assumed the existence of an ether set in motion and rotation by atoms. I think that the evolution of her ideas would have led her inevitably to a Cartesian type system.
But it happened that the author I just mentioned was trying for several years to understand why pure Science is a failure. She was in the process of analysing the beginning of the early development of electromagnetism, far before Maxwell.
The deeper you go through science history for two centuries, the more you are impressed by the logic of the sequence. It seems even more it is highly unlikely, that one could have been led to another situation. The existence of so many dissidents results from the fact that scientists were forced to adopt postulates and assumptions opposite to sound views in use, particularly in engineering technologies. But at that time they had no choice in fact!
This author has come to the point of attributing the huge problems that are the daily bread of physicists in universities worldwide, to an error in the early days of electromagnetic theory, at the source. I am deeply convinced she was taken away by a dazzling cancer at the very moment her analysis would have brought her to reconsider the Ørsted's statement. The Ørsted's statement is the cause of all misfortunes. She would also have discovered that the movement of electrons is not the cause of magnetic fields! There is no problem of the relativity within electromagnetic phenomena!
There remains the problem of the transverse nature of light. It remains a postulate. A solution will appear much further. It requires a thorough knowledge of fluid mechanics, not so much of its results, but first of the basic principles of the development of this engineering techniques. These basic principles are not simple to understand. They are not really deepened within the university training courses. However, some of these principles have been selected because they provide acceptable results. But they are not required for logical reasons. One example is the systematic use of Euler variables preferably to Lagrange variables. Similarly, it is fully abnormal to continue to deduct the equations of fluid mechanics in cylindrical coordinates from the equations in Cartesian coordinates. Using the theorem of the angular momentum allows for obtaining directly and very simply the equations in cylindrical coordinates. It also helps to understand the presence of surprising differential in the case of real fluids, i.e. with frictions. Additionally, it introduces a very singular term, which is negligible in fluids such as water and air and even in superfluids. It should be useful to explain why it is negligible. This is not immediate.
Angular momenta are not intuitive. Their theorem is scary, even for specialists. Look at these mechanisms that rotate quietly well. Touch them, they startle, they jump like cats. 76 dissidents also thought to have found in the gyroscopic effect a new energy source questioning the second law of thermodynamics or Carnot’s principle.
Ether and photons (Newton)
We are going now to review the alternative paradigms with ether. These categories include the features common to nearly all theories of dissidents. They reject the multiple dimensions; they reject the physical reality of the time, postulated by the theory of Relativity, as well as the probabilistic nature of particles. This rejection does not mean the rejection of the stochastic nature of fluids. It is quite the contrary. Brownian motions of the multitude of particles that make up the ether fluids are treated by statistics. The law of large numbers is fully within its field of application. The probabilistic approach of Quantum Mechanics is exactly the opposite of the application of statistics to fluids. Its partisans claim to use a mathematical theory devoted to large numbers to each particle individually taken by itself. One wonders what may well mean the term "probability of presence" to a unique being? It is the negation of the very principles of statistics which they say they apply the rules.
The authors proposing ether do not assume the impossibility to know the position and velocity of a particle of ether at a given time. But the particles are so numerous that this knowledge would have no interest. They do not examine the individual properties of ether particles, but the properties that result from their simultaneous existence in space.
Newton's ether type is an intermediary between the theories based on corpuscles or waves and theories based exclusively on fluid ethers.
Newton's ether did not transmit light. It was a fluid with a variable density, filling more or less space between bodies. It was mainly confined around the body. The light consisted of corpuscles emitted by matter. These corpuscles moving in empty space with the celerity of light entered the ether surrounding bodies, causing waves, like a pebble in the water. It is the Newton explanation of interference he had just discovered. The discovery of non-localised interference put an end to this intricate vision. Interference can only be the result of the wave nature of light. This system has not survived its inventor. Ether was quickly taken as the only way to explain the celerity of waves. This evidence has not been questioned for over two centuries. Relativists have returned, by necessity, to corpuscles of light: the photons. They say that the celerity of photon is a law of nature that it would be futile to try to explain. This is the fundamental relativistic postulate.
Systems belonging to Newton ether category include variable density ether as Newton's ether. They do not use it to explain the wave nature of light, but to explain gravity by Archimedes' effect. Within these theories, light and other electromagnetic waves are generally carried by corpuscles. But some theories use also wave trains as in the previous chapter.
The density of ether decreases in approaching matter. As a consequence, Archimedes thrust increases. Bodies are thus more accelerated closer they are to each other. We can see some difficulties. How are mixed ethers of the two bodies that seem to be attracted by this change in density? It is difficult to find causes for this decrease in the density of ether in approaching matter. Several authors have added absorption of ether by the bodies to explain this decrease. Matter would be a kind of sink or well of ether. The word well refers here to a well-known kind of flow of Fluid Mechanics. It has the particularity of being irrotational. It follows that the flow exhibits the same characteristics for perfect fluids as for viscous fluids with friction.
In these circumstances, there is duplication of resources. This redundancy is against the principle of simplicity, the famous razor of Ockham. There is redundancy, since the flow of ether towards matter causes itself a push of bodies towards each other. Wells in fluid mechanics inevitably tend to come together and merge into a single well. It should be added that the idea of wells or condensation of ether in the particles the matter is made of causes an increase in the mass of these particles. Here we find the ideas of Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky, in 1888, based on the condensation of ether in atoms, which would explain gravity. This approach was taken again by Christopher Hilgenberg in 1933. Some authors proposed corpuscles of ether without mass. It becomes difficult to explain any dynamic effect of ether on the matter.
The radial speeds of ether within a spatial well flow, i.e. speeds naturally directed towards the centre of the well, are inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of well. This is the mathematical law of flow rates. The law is valid only if the density of ether is constant. It is valid for all types of fluids without any exception, even for superfluids. It is not suitable for the Newton ether category. The density of these ethers is variable.
Newton ether category presents another major difficulty. Everything goes well until bodies are only moving closer, towards each other. Once they move transversely relative to each other, there is the problem of the composition of the speeds relative to ether. If the ether has an effect on bodies and can set them in motion, conversely motion of bodies in the ether must have an effect on the motion of these bodies. The Archimedes' thrust causes an acceleration of bodies towards one another. It implies that moving a body relative to the ether can not be without effect on the body itself. This effect is inseparable from thrust resulting from well flows as well.
In the case of motion under the sole action of density effect, the case of Newton ethers, one can assume that the fluid is perfect, i.e. without friction. However, even in perfect fluid, motion of bodies does not remain without effect on their own motion. Once ether carries waves, and this is the case of some theories bases upon Newton ether category with variable density, one shall take into account, in addition to Fluid Mechanics, kinetic theory of gases, the only one that explains the speed of propagation waves in fluids.
We will see in the third part that a body moving in a perfect fluid, considered also as a perfect gas, has a drag when moving against the fluid. According to the theory of perfect fluids, a moving body in such a theoretical fluid experiences no drag. This is the d'Alembert's paradox. But it does not hold true in the ideal gas theory. This is what allows the use of flow well of fluid mechanics, even when the fluid is perfect, that is to say without friction, if we also assume that it is an ideal gas. This difference in behavior between the perfect fluids and ideal gases is symptomatic of the difference between mathematical approaches and corpuscular approaches. The mathematical approach to fluid mechanics is based on essentially continuous equations, while the corpuscular approach of the kinetic theory of gases is essentially discontinuous.
The fact remains that, if the existence of a Newton ether can explain a gravitational effect, it remains to account for the proportionality of the thrust to the mass. It should also explain how the transverse displacement of the body in the flow of another does not produce drag. There is inevitably composition of speeds! This was an aspect of Poincaré’s and Russell’s, the astronomer, critics against ether.
Some authors in this category have fully understood the problem. One solution is to have ether turning around bodies. A body in orbit around another one would thus have the same motion as ether. However, these authors do not offer an explanation for this rotation. Additionally, a problem of angular momentum appears.
Perhaps to avoid this difficulty, an author proposed using the Magnus effect. The Magnus effect is a lift that results from the intrinsic rotation of a body in a fluid. This is the very principle of tennis drive with a cut. The racket gives the ball a rotation on itself. Lift resulting from this rotation, the Magnus effect, causes the ball to follow a curved trajectory. The very same phenomenon despairs golfer who does not control slices and hooks. Improper position of the club put the ball in rotation around itself. The high speed of the ball masks the effect on a large part of the trajectory. But at the end, the Magnus effect prevails and the ball takes a tangent, so to say
The author believes compensating transverse drag by Magnus effect. The difficulty is to justify the rotation speed without increasing the number of ad hoc factors.
A variant of the Newton’s ether is taking the Huygens’ wavelets for realities. The light is somehow re-emitted at every jump of travelling photons through interference probably with an underlying ether. This is not very clear. The interest of this approach is to explain the Sagnac’s experiment very simply, and, of course, the Michelson’s experiment itself. The author does not know the measurements of Miller. But his theory explains them qualitatively.
The theories of the ether can be unified. The ether must be regarded as the constituent of matter and explain all types of forces of nature. There are only a few alternative theories of ether in this case. Several of them involve very different phenomena to explain these forces whose intensity has also considerable differences.
It should be noted, among Newton ether category, the presence of an author who explicitly rejects the need for unification of the forces of nature. He attributes the gravitation to ether, but did not see why it would be imperative to consider an unification of forces. He did not see why it should be required that his theory also explains the electromagnetic forces and the forces of cohesion of matter. He considers this requirement as purely philosophical. It is not very friendly for philosophers who are assimilated to those people who lay down unjustified dictates such as postulates. Unification is not at all a philosophical requirement. It is a perfectly arbitrary requirement. It enters the great positivist and progressist illusion. It's the idea of end of science. This is the end of pure science. Its full failure now occurs. But this was not such an end which was expected!
It was hoped to achieve a unified, holistic vision of Universe giving man the key to all knowledge. Utopia today shows its true face: absurdity. The qualitative leap into nothingness!
Ether and vortices or rings
In this chapter, ether is a fluid that fills Space. The nature of this fluid is subject to many assumptions. Fluids we know, liquids, gases, superfluids, plasmas, are not suitable to reflect the behaviour of ether itself and in relation to bodies moving inside. Altogether the authors do retain only some properties of fluids and add dedicated assumptions. Their ether is not a fluid such as those we actually know, but with only one single exception, they do not offer any theoretical justification for their new fluid. Moreover they propose various additional properties but never the same!
Two theories of the category of this chapter use both rings and whirls that the authors call vortices. The others are divided equally between theories with rings or tubes only and theories with vortices only.
One theory attributes the transverse properties of light to the propagation of a spiral perturbation in ether. A spiral has a transverse velocity, a component perpendicular to the propagation of the perturbation. Such a flow may be conceived in the frame of Helmholtz's tubes. One difficulty is to determine a limitation of the cross section of the tubes. This limitation does not appear in the known Fluid Mechanics solutions. The stability of Helmholtz' tubes results from the absence of limitation.
In this theory, one of the most comprehensive in the field of Fluid Mechanics, particles of matter are rings. We will see that two rings with opposite rotations attract and they repel each other if their directions of rotation are identical. Many theories use this phenomenon to explain the electrical charges. Here the author explains also the electromagnetic fields.
It should be noted that the same ether bears the spiral waves, light, and electromagnetic properties of matter. But the spiral waves are not electromagnetic. This is a differentiation, which goes against the theory of Maxwell. The electromagnetic nature of light, stated by Maxwell, is a postulate. The fourth part of this work presents the paradigm of the facts. Experiments show that there are never direct effects of electromagnetic fields on the light. In all known experiments, the electromagnetic fields change the matter structure, which in turn is the direct cause of the modification of the behaviour of light, of the polarisation in particular, but there is never direct effect of fields on light.
It is very different for gravity. Descartes and Newton have both expected an effect of gravity on light. The most curious is that Newton explains, finally, half of this effect. However, Newton effect has not the same cause as that provided by Descartes. That is really something strange! Descartes stated that his whirl should curve light.
In this theory, the author considers that gravitation results from the motion of ether caused by the rings. This statement is difficult to understand.
A variant of Helmoltz' tubes is the generation of a helical structure from a ring. The ring is, in some way, cut across and stretched to form a spiral, which may, by twisting, include several windings. A smaller helical winding turning in the opposite direction, located inside the first helical structure, closes it from the interior. It is difficult to understand how the limits of this structure are formed in the ether. The cigar smoker, making beautiful rings, think maybe that the structure of its rings moves independently of the air. In fact, the air surrounding the visible part of the ring, evidenced by the smoke, is also turning at the same time as the ring of smoke, with a speed inversely proportional to the distance to the axis of the ring. The stability of Helmholtz' vortices can only be demonstrated within the whole fluid and not only for a cylindrical limited zone, should its axis be straight or curved.
However, one can take as a model the visible part of the ring of smoker. The smoke would represent the massive part, so to say, of the particles of the ether. If one succeeds to demonstrate the stability of this structure, it may be of considerable interest. The mass would be concentrated at the periphery of the ring. In these conditions, the effect of a current of ether would be proportional to the mass of the ring. The mass of the ring is itself proportional to the apparent surface of the ring against the flow. This is exactly the same for the bubble structure of particles. That is the answer to one of the crucial questions posed by the use of ether to explain gravity. It is common to rings and bubbles. For bubbles, one visualise the internal and external interfaces of the material part, condensed if you like, and of ether. It is therefore easy to understand the action of the fluid. Theory of rings considered as topological domains, defined by interface surfaces with ether both internal and external, remains to be developed to ensure its feasibility. It has essential differences with the Helmholtz' model which prevent for using the theoretical and experimental results of Helmholtz' tube and ring approach.
Absolute energetic ether (Lorentz)
The polarisation of light highlights its transversal nature. Electromagnetic nature of other similar waves, the Maxwell's theory, also postulates a transversal nature of these waves.
Maxwell's theory is based upon the idea that these waves should be electromagnetic by themselves. The major premise of that pure induction is that these waves are caused by electromagnetic phenomenon. They are essentially the oscillations of electrons in matter and in conductors. The minor premise is that these waves have electromagnetic effects on matter. They set electrons in motion.
It is a pure induction, because nothing, no experiment, no objective evidence shows that these are electromagnetic waves by themselves. There is no reason why moving electrons shall produce electromagnetic waves. There is no more reason why waves must be electromagnetic to move electrons. This is a pure postulate of Maxwell.
The fact remains that the polarisation is a transverse phenomenon. But only solids can transmit transverse waves. However, in solids, transverse waves are always associated with longitudinal waves. It shall therefore assume that the ether is a very peculiar solid: it does not carry longitudinal waves.
Another problem is to understand how bodies can move in a solid. The model of the Lorentz' ether is pure fiction. Michelson's Experiment questioned seriously this form of ether. The so-called principle of Relativity put an end to Lorentz' ether theory which has been replaced by the corpuscular theory of the photon. Unfortunately, any possibility to explain the celerity of light was discarded. It is therefore a postulate. The prey was released for the shade. There are still some authors who remain unsatisfied. They consider it more important to explain the celerity of waves that the Michelson's experiment. They are supported in their position by the Allais' analyses of Miller results obtained with the very same device. He shows that the residual values obtained with the Michelson's interferometer are not related to the measurement uncertainty. The statistical analysis is inescapable, irrefutable. The measured values correspond to a distribution related to sidereal time. There are therefore no systematic errors of measurement as an effect of temperature.
This questioning of the very foundations of pure Science is recent. That is why very few authors take this into account. They return to the position of Bouasse and some great physicists of the early last century. It is more advisable to first explain the most general rather than singular. However, the solid ether remains very suspect. It needs dedicated assumptions. This is a solid, but not so much as bodies move freely through it. This is a solid, but it does not transmit longitudinal waves.
Hence the proposal to reverse the situation. Ether is an energetic medium, which has some properties of solids, such as the speed of waves and their transverse nature, but this is not a solid. This energetic medium is electromagnetic by nature. Half of authors belonging to this category consider the unification of forces as a necessity. Thus, they attribute gravitation to electromagnetism phenomena.
It is more difficult to understand why some authors retain the photons, and even make it the ultimate component of matter. Sometimes there are two kinds of photons, one of them may even be virtual. There is only one example of such a theory. An alternative is to use the photon and absence of photon, a hole in the ether, as a means of differentiation. This is a clear influence of the theory of semiconductors. An original position is to consider that the photons come in pairs, linked by a kind of spring. They form a wave system, without the magnificent conjecture of the dual nature of photon, particle and wave, depending on the experimental conditions.
Authors who have rejected the redundancy ether plus photons, proposed to explain the forces of Nature by energetic particles of various shapes. There are, of course, dialectical visions with doublets of opposite charges, dipoles.
Anti-gravity is still a question. The idea of positive and negative masses is a form of answer, although there is then only attraction, whose effect on a negative mass is inverse of the effect on a positive. But the theory of attraction and repulsion also exists; it would be as anti-gravity. Within fluid, wells and springs represent these assumptions.
More generally, 20 % of the energetic ethers consider that particles are waves. These waves are usually disturbances within the energetic medium, the ether. As to matter, it would be a composition of these particles. This is a common feature of many theories. A kind of constitutive principle. The components of ether make up matter.
Differentiation between waves is required to explain the various forces of Nature. The phase advance and delay were used to play this role.
The unification of forces is it really necessary? Why the force of my arm, it is true rather weak, would not be also unified? Seriously, why the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces would not be unified with other forces of Nature? Ah, I mix everything! How pure Science could deal with these the dirty work of technical engineers! I am only a poor lumpen-physicist.
Some elders, in the lot, can not conceive that science can deal with returns on the past. Pure science could not, under any circumstances, be another phoenix. They want to see only one issue. The great leap forward. The jump in the ultimate knowledge. They wait more likely for the end of science that the believer hopes for paradise. However, there is behind pure Science only one future, one hope, one end: the dustbin of history. Without recycling!
These irreducibles really do not want any ether. They call ether a non-Euclidean geometric empty space, with time as a fourth dimension. By clutching at a mathematical ether, they imagine they are able to explain the speed of waves. Electromagnetic energy is supposed to be transversal. The round is played for polarisation. They zap in the properties of solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, fluids and superfluids, in geometry as well. They fill their virtual cart with a few vortices and some Helmholtz rings, charged wave trains and particles as well. They add some bold assumptions of pure Science together with the Lorentz' transformation and strings, without taking care to check the expiry dates. All this, spin out with a variety of equations to impress crowds, gives a few hundred esoteric pages that explain everything.
I suspect that there are most of them convinced relativists. They put their name among dissidents. Who knows!
But since we are in the geometry, an additional step should be reported. Why not call on other mathematical concepts? It has been already done with the Lorentz transformation group, the famous Lorentz' formulas. This is the framework of General Relativity, with its curvature of space. One author uses the mathematical formalism without preconceptions. It assumes the existence of operators. These operators should be in Nature, although he doesn’t tell it explicitly. They transform an energetic variable, equally natural, into all sorts of forces and particles that exist. The idea is quite similar to the defunct string theory. Those strings were also mathematics beings. Deprived of ambitious 24 dimensions, they had dropped back to 11 before falling in the trap, perhaps driven by a too heavy ball. They should have explained all forces of nature.
One can lock oneself in his convictions, refusing to consider anything outside the official framework. Is there still a framework? But you can also follow the valuable advice of Gauchet: mutual tolerance. Revealing an unsuspected wealth, the human imagination seems boundless. There are not two similar alternatives theories among the 1887 this book pretends to catalogue and summarise. The reader has understood for a long time, I have an entirely different objective. From this enormous volume of web pages, I take out what I needed to better explain the problems posed by the paradigm of facts listed in the last part of this book. Each author has focused on a more or less extensive number of experimental facts, which he considers essential. Yet there is nothing secondary or negligible. The most prodigious theories supported by the most impressive calculations are the first victims of the facts left out. Who said "all is nothing, everything is in details? " It is worthy of a man of war. This is not Clausewitz, I checked! This is Dufaud an ironmaster. Victor Hugo dramatizes: "The whole overwhelms, the detail tortures".
Here is now a theory, which could receive a prize for originality. His energetic ether has the four dimensions of relativists. It is filled in with a material with neither dimensions nor duration. This material is regenerated into matter under the form of white holes, the opposite to the hypothetical black holes. This material is the 90 % missing mass of the universe. It is curious to note this human tendency to Manichean or dialectic visions. If there are black holes, we should also imagine white holes! It is the equivalent of flow wells and sources of Fluid Mechanics. A variant gives only one dimension to the energetic ultimate component of matter.
Although with an energetic nature, some ethers in this category have a density increasing when one approaches matter. They use the Newton's model. They gave their ether one of the properties of fluids. This provision is intended to explain gravitation. An author hesitates between this Newton assumption and the effect of screen that characterizes the LeSage's hypothesis.
It is more difficult to conceive this space crossed by a multitude of geometric points of energy that do not meet one another. This seems to be because they are only points. Nevertheless they may meet matter and this interaction explains the various forces of Nature.
Three other authors in this category may be considered as a link with the categories of the following chapters. They have given their energetic ether some properties of fluids. They were able to assume overall motions of ether, which can explain the anisotropy of space, discovered by Allais.
Finally, the angular moments appear in one theory. I am not able to explain the system of the author. But he questioned the problem of angular moment. He considers that the energy of the neutrinos includes an angular kinetic energy. They are able to transmit the angular momentum like they do for linear momentum.
This is a first approach to the more general problem of degrees of freedom of ether fluid particles as we shall see further. Here we can see the consequences of this profound need. We can not ignore the angular kinetic energy should it be related to particles, or to stars.
Absolute fluid ether (LeSage)
(Yarkowski alternative with condensation)
LeSage proposed in 1784 to explain the gravitation by a screen effect of bodies in ether. To express it in present, this ether would be a stochastic fluid consistent with the kinetic theory of gases. Ether fills space. If the mean free path of particles of this ether is sufficient, then a depression may exist between the bodies. These bodies should have been first closed from one another, then be separated in the process of creation.
In his book "Science and hypothesis" Poincaré analysis the Lesage theory. Poincaré says that depression assumed by Lesage can not be maintained, as new particles will reflect on the body and fill the Lesage gap. He considers Lesage ether as an ideal gas to assert that the corpuscles of Lesage ether therefore can not be elastic. Then he shows that the hypothesis of the plastic particle of ether, that is to say capable of yielding energy, is itself impossible. The Earth temperature, for example, would increase by 1013°/s.
Poincaré eliminated Lesage ether not wanting to think about this possibility of adequate free paths with regard to the distance of stars. This is obviously a bold assumption that Lesage could not mention in his time. But, again, why not? Poincaré could not ignore this possibility. His aim was to eliminate what does not fit into his vision of the world.
This ether is also the medium of light. LeSage was freed from the redundant assumption of Newton's light corpuscles.
V. V. Radzieskij published a very comprehensive history and problems of the theory of LeSage and its variants, in particular the work of Lomonosov and Majorana. His conclusion is that this system can account for gravitation only in its undulatory variant. But the most curious of this long debate is that at no point the question was considered in the statistical framework that characterises the action of a particle, base of the LeSage's system. With elastic shocks, the mask effect can be sustained if the mean free path is sufficient, which is not without problems. Ultimately, if the bodies are joined, the vacuum is maintained for a period, which may be calculated statistically.
The phenomenon exists in the air. It is linked to atmospheric pressure: it explains the difficulty in trying to separate, by traction, two plates of glass or polished marble. In terms of gravity, one could imagine a LeSage type action between two atomic nuclei of a molecule, but it seems difficult to apply it between atoms of two stars!
As Feynman pointed out, the problem with these systems is related to the composition of speed relative to ether. The solution to this concern is necessary for compliance with the Kepler's laws.
The equations of perfect fluid mechanics lead to the paradox of d'Alembert. The flow around a plate is symmetrical. There is no lift. One introduced the viscosity empirically to obtain a drag effect. In fact, the drag effect of perfect fluid exists, although it is usually negligible. The effect of a fluid without viscosity on a moving body on the fluid can only be understood by the statistical approach of kinetic theory of gases. The speed of a body relative to a fluid changes the apparent mean square velocity of agitation of the fluid particles and thus the pressure on the body. The upstream side pressure is increased and decreased downstream side. This action is neglectable in the air for transonic speeds, where the waves that result allow for calculating a drag. That is why this question has not been more thoroughly deepened. In the case of LeSage's corpuscular ether, a significant pressure differential can be not excluded a priori.
An interesting variant is the use of pressure waves. This assumption is retained by the authors who attribute to particles a wave nature exclusively. This approach does not solve the problem of the tangential drag of rotating planets around another. This is the problem of velocities relative to the ether.
This is the real justification for the remark of Feynman. But it prohibits its implementation to gravity, without further assumptions. Some authors uses either the Magnus’ effect or the Helmholtz’ effect to remedy this problem. The rotation of rings around themselves in the ether causes a lift by the introduction of a "circulation". In the perfect fluid, it is a mathematical fiction. Without friction, a rotating cylinder can not drag the fluid. There is a lift only in viscous fluids. This is a difficulty which leads to very complex calculations to justify the gravitational action directed towards the centre of the stars and to justify also the lift that compensates the tangential drag of the stars rotating around one another. It is necessary to set a link between the speed of rotation, which enters the famous "circulation" and the effect of gravity. This link does not exist for planets.
Others use the LeSage's screen effect to explain the stability of atomic nuclei. They introduced a condensation of ether in matter to explain gravitation by a masking effect maintained by this condensation. Condensation causes a depression between the bodies. These authors fall then on a problem of redundancy, because the condensation alone causes an ether wind oriented towards the centre of the stars, which should account in the gravitation process.
Curiously one author proposes an evaporation of ether. Matter would be source of ether. The effect of screen causes a decrease in evaporation between the two bodies. The result is a differential pressure. But in this case, there is no redundancy, since evaporation would produce a distancing of the bodies. Similarly, a body in motion would cause increased evaporation into the ether upstream. This effect would compensate for the drag. I believe that these changes in the evaporation of matter into ether results from the wave nature of particles of ether. One should be able to explain it as a decrease in energy received by the body by screen effect. Again, there must be a link between the radial evaporation from the central star and the evaporation due to the tangential displacement in the ether. No justification has been produced up to now by these authors. The challenge is huge.
The polarisation has particularly stimulated the imagination of authors. One hypothesis is to assimilate the polarisation phenomenon to interferences. The implementation of this idea is complex. But one may imagine that the black lines of interference may be assimilated to polarisation extinction.
It should be noted a proposal that will take its full meaning in the next chapter. We will see that the fundamental problem of systems based on the whirls of Descartes results from the angular moment theorem. However, one of the authors of a theory based on the LeSage’s screen effect attributes the polarisation of light to the spin of the particles of ether. The concept of spin has stringent limitations. You can not really take spin for an angular moment of particles, especially since the author considers spin values of opposite signs. However, this is a first step towards the Cartesian unification of light and gravity.
The problem of angular momentum visibly disrupts several authors. Most who have thought about this issue have adopted Descartes type ether. There is an exception. The author in question has not assumed the existence of whirls. He proposes instead a rotation of the entire Universe. He tried to compensate the angular moment of rotation of galaxies and stellar systems like the solar system. His system of gravity remains based upon LeSage's screen effect.
Before adopting its Archimedean gravitation, the first attempt of Newton proposed a condensation of a fluid on the surface of the body. This explanation of gravity was echoed by Riemann in 1853. Riemann thought that the fluid gravity was discharged into another world by a sort of black hole. Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky took up this idea in 1888. He was led to think of a progressive increase of mass of the atoms. This idea arranges the affairs of planets expansion supporters to explain continental drift. This hypothesis could solve the problem of energy involved by the solution of Newton. All these attempts were unable to solve the problem of composition of velocities of the stars. If a fluid pushes the body towards each other, then movement in the fluid causes a drag necessarily. This drag is inconsistent with the laws of Kepler. In addition, the action of a fluid on a body depends first on its apparent section and not on its mass. Neither Newton nor Riemann could think about how the material is empty, so it seems strong.
Ether and whirls (Descartes)
The systems based upon the system describes by “The World” of Descartes are the only ones in all existing systems, including Relativity, to explain simultaneously Michelson's experiment, Sagnac's experiment, aberration of fixed stars and the absence of aberration of moving stars and satellites. The explanation is perfectly clear, it might even been said intuitive. The explanation is extremely simple and does not need the slightest calculation. Moreover, these systems are the only ones which can explain, also without dedicated assumptions, the results of the analysis conducted by Allais from measurements of Miller and its own experiments on the light repeating the Esclangon’s measurements. These systems introduce anisotropy. To understand the unexpected performance of a system considered as being completely out of age, we have to recall the main lines.
The system of Descartes is the first attempt of unified paradigm. Light, gravity and electromagnetism are carried by a single ether filling space.
The stars, the Sun, the Earth, the planets are surrounded by huge whirls of ether dragging their respective planets and satellites in rotation. The Descartes’ ether is a perfect fluid. The whirls are maintained indefinitely.
Gravity is linked to the whirl. It results of the gyrocyclone effect. Solid particles in a fluid set in rotation flock together near the axis of rotation. It can be verified in a cup of tea. The small fragments of tea the strainer has not retained gather at the centre of the cup when the tea has been set rotating. This effect opposes the centrifugal acceleration. Newton was wrong to assert that Descartes would not have balanced the centrifugal acceleration as he has devoted many pages and several drawings to this problem. Descartes, it is true, did not balance the two effects quantitatively. With the exception of its Dioptric, the work of Descartes is primarily qualitative and descriptive.
The light is a disturbance that propagates through the ether. Descartes compared the disturbance to the motion of a stick that strikes an obstacle. It does not conceive the transmission of a disturbance like other wave phenomena such as swell and sound. The light is so fast that he gave it an instant effect. He was wrong on this point but it is easy to amend his theory.
Magnetism results from the helical shape of his particles of ether.
The success of Newton, then of Relativity theory, has relegated the Descartes’ system into oblivion. To date about twenty authors of alternative theories have taken up the challenge. Two of them have made a radical change to the system of Descartes. They introduced a hypothesis that we have already encountered. They assumed that the ether condenses in matter so that they are able to explain quantitatively the Newton's law. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the central star. Both have assumed that particles and atom nuclei are bubbles. Condensation is, quite naturally, proportional to the mass of particles that compose matter. But the mass of bubbles, as the mass of rings, is proportional to their apparent surface, the action of ether wind on bodies is thus proportional to their mass. Finally, the whirling ether dragging matter results in no relative transverse speed, in no transverse drag. Already these few statements explain the Sagnac's and Michelson's experiments, without any calculation. Moreover, they give an explanation of the statistical analysis of Miller's measurements by Allais and of sight deviation measured by Esclangon.
However, these impressive results are annihilated by a simple remark. The law of tangential speeds in the whirls is inversely proportional to the distance from the centre of the central star. This system can not comply with the Kepler's laws. This speed should be proportional to the inverse of the square root of the distance from the central star.
This is where the two authors separate. One chose a solution close to the conceptions of pure Science with of curvature of space. He introduces a geometric approach of gravitation.
The other upsets the Descartes' system. How to solve a problem of angular moments? By starting with angular moments! This author attributes to the particles of ether a stochastic angular moment, in addition to their stochastic linear momentum, already assumed for fluidic ethers. Everything falls over from then on. The corpuscles the fluid ether is made of do have now six degrees of freedom, the three components of the linear moment and the three components of the angular momentum. Therefore the equipartition principle applies, but on one condition: it is necessary that the angular moment be transmitted during the impact of two corpuscles of ether at the same time as the linear moment. However, this is a major discovery, the assumption of elastic spheres, already used for the transmission of linear moment in the kinetic theory of gases, can explain as well the transmission of angular moment. The elasticity of the body causes a local deformation of the particles at the impact surface. This deformation is increased by the elastic spheres own rotations. The most severe the deformation the most efficient is the angular moment transfer. Rotation enforces an asymmetrical deformation that stores energy. This energy is recovered during the rebound by ensuring, through the buckling of the deformation, the transfer of angular moments.
Taking into account the kinetic energy of rotation and the principle of equipartition entail the doubling of one of the terms of the Lagrange equation. The solution of the new equation is a law of tangential speed within whirl flows inversely proportional to the square root of the distance from the centre of the central star. That is exactly what gives the Kepler's laws.
This is impossible in a fluid consisting of molecules, such as air and water. The shapes of the molecules are complex. The intrinsic rotations can not maintain.
The modification of the equations of Fluid Mechanics, which might be called ether mechanics, seems to be minor. But this small change has a huge consequence.
Of course, all problems related to distant action are solved for both the acceleration towards the central star and for angular moments. But it is still very few things. Of course, only the transverse component of angular moment may be involved in the transmission of angular moments. The particles of the ether are elastic. They flatten during impacts. This flattening prevents them from sliding on one another and allows the transmission of angular momentum. It is a transverse property giving the first physical answer forever to the polarisation of light. This is again still a detail.
We will see in the fourth part of this book that the rotation speed around themselves of fluid particles within whirl flows, both in perfect and viscous fluids, is exactly equal and opposite to their revolution speed in the overall motion of the whirl.
In ether mechanic, it does not. There is a surplus of angular moment in the overall whirl revolution on the own revolution of fluid particles, due to the modification of Lagrange’s equation. This excess must be compensated. The intrinsic angular moment of fluid particles is the only available source. Thus it shall decrease as one approaches the central star. As a consequence, the Lagrange’s equation must be changed gradually, because the principle of equipartition remains applicable. This component of the angular moment is gradually pumped by the whirl flow. But a part of the intrinsic fluid particle revolution speed passes in the overall motion of the whirl flow, i.e. in another term of the ether equation. When angular moment of the particles of ether is entirely pumped out, the ether equations turn to be the normal Fluid Mechanics equations. The tangential speed law is 1/r. The transition zone from one to the other configuration is done at constant speed. This is the law of tangential velocities of galaxies. This explains also the anomaly in the motion of Mercury, but also that of Phobos.
The deflection of light by stars is roughly the double of the value resulting from the law of Newton. It is the sum of Newton's effect and Descartes’ effect. The first half results from the condensation of the ether, the second half from the ether rotation, the Cartesian whirl, which drag along the waves it carries.
The maximum value of the speed of the Earth relative to ether was measured by Miller with the Michelson's interferometer at 6 and 18 sidereal hours. This time is when the Sun is in the interferometer plan. One measure at this point the radial speed of ether towards the Sun, added or subtracted to the tangential speed of the zonal whirl of the Earth. The author calculates from that speed the vertical speed of ether condensation in atoms of the Earth. This speed exceeds 5000 Km/s. Such a speed is consistent with measurements of vertical deviations with optical sights on patterns and collimators measured by Allais, and finally with the anomalies measured by Vignal for correcting levelling measures. Sinusoidal curves obtained by the author are identical to those of Allais. They were obtained using only the maximum value measured by Miller.
Like all theories involving a condensation of ether into matter, this improved Cartesian theory of ether led to an increase of the size of the atoms over time. The first consequence is a gradual shift of the spectrum of light emitted over time. This is obviously an extremely simple explanation of Hubble's galactic redshift.
The mass of atoms and thus the mass of matter increases. There is nothing absolutely constant, absolute, in nature. It is not so surprising. This is the position of the author. He derives from this increase a remarkable consequence. Matter is denser in the centre of the Earth than to the surface. If the density were constant, the surface would increase in proportion to the increased volume. But this variable density causes the volume of the Earth to increase faster near the centre than at the surface of the Earth. The surface must stretch if it is elastic, or crack. In any event, despite the huge magmatic eruptions of mountains and volcanoes, the internal pressure of the Earth is maintained. The resulting earthquakes and tsunamis are manifestations of the condensation of ether, bigger at the centre of the Earth than at the periphery. These consequences of the gravitation process are certainly tragic, but inevitable.
Finally, the waves in fluid ether are by no means spherical waves. The light is made up of wave trains whose transverse dimensions are those of the emitter electrons. Nearly perfect spherical shape of the particles of the ether prevents the spread of these wave trains. The particles do not drag their neighbours as in air but also in water. This is the explanation given by this author to the corpuscular properties of light. All corpuscular properties of these wave trains are identical to those of postulated photons. Compliance with the experimental paradigm is therefore quantitative. No further assumption is needed.
As a counterpart, this theory is not unified. The light is not electromagnetic in itself. It is the first point. The author does not pretend to explain everything. It does not explain the electromagnetic fields. His thesis is that electromagnetic phenomena belong to another approach, involving speeds an order of magnitude much higher than the celerity of light. This is somehow a fractal view with several levels.
Moreover, he has no theory of particles. He rejects the idea that the exchange of particles can be the source of acceleration. More generally, by assigning the magnetic fields to the magnetic moment of electrons and not to their translation, he lists a number of simplifications to the understanding of the problem of spectral lines, the basis of Quantum Mechanics. One hesitates to point out that he does not believe for a second to the probabilistic thesis, unanimously rejected by all the authors of alternative theories. Yet his ether is essentially the place of stochastic movements of the particles that compose it.
In conclusion of this analysis of alternative systems, we can say that there are currently 1887 irreconcilable alternative paradigms posterior to 1905 in the Internet and in the literature. Faced with such a fragmentation of proposals, one might think that the current paradigm of pure Science is ensured a very comfortable life, despite the huge difficulties encountered during this same period. The problem is that these problems affect the very foundations of quantum and relativistic doctrines. This is no more a few hundreds of scientists going their separate ways with the certainty of being on the right path. These are tens of thousands of professors, doctors and other highly graduate scientists who do not believe in anything, who do not speak to one another. And they are confronted with students, the few who remain in a scientific way, who laugh frankly when they hear of unsurpassable absolute speed, of probability of presence or speed of time. Ah yes, there are two or three in the first rank, who passively record the dogma set in a flat voice by a man who no longer believes what he is teaching. They want a paper at the end of the year to find a job. No waves.
Alongside the struggle for the public funds and donations, each has his own idea to get rid of problems or his belief that there is no escape, not even an emergency door. The divisions are just as dramatic as between the dissidents. It's chaos, a terrible hurly-burly!
All conciliation attempts end with clashes more or less violent. Even authors who have similar basic assumptions deviate from one another very soon. Even worst, the authors starting from their master’s assumptions end up opposing him. Aristotle and Plato are the best historical example.
If he was wrong for evolution in nature, would Darwin be right in the field of theories? But which is the best? The most shared? The most revolutionary? The largest? What are the criteria of the best? Theories that explain the most facts are they the best? Experiments will never prove a theory! We will examine, in the fourth part, the paradigm of the facts, experiments that have marked the history of physics since Ørsted.
Before that, I propose to examine in detail the problems of fluid mechanics applied to gravitation. The fluids are indeed the most media used to model the ether.
The problems related to the utilisation of fluid mechanics in cosmology
Problems related to gravitation
The perfect fluid mechanics is governed by differential equations of elliptic type: they have mathematical solutions in very few cases where they may be simplified to integrable forms. These are the so-called potential flows. All these flows are two-dimensional. There are only a few known solutions: permanent plane flow around plate, with or without discontinuities, whirl flow, with or without hollow vortex, and the source and sink flows that differ only by sign.
Plane flows with discontinuities have been the most studied. Flows around plates and cylinders are the foundations of the theory of wing profile of aeroplanes. The mathematical transformation of the cylinder allows for investigating all kinds of theoretical profiles. However, experiment shows that these profiles do not give the best results. It has been necessary to define experimentally improved profiles that are not solutions of the equations of Fluid Mechanics. One of the problems of the theoretical approach is the angle of separation of fluid threads within the laminar flow around a cylinder. This problem only exists for viscous fluid. This never happens in the implementations to ether. It will not be examined there.
The Magnus effect falls within the framework of the theory of wing profiles of aeroplanes. A circulation around the cylinder is added to a plane flow around the cylinder. This circulation creates an asymmetry of the fluid pressure in the flow around the cylinder and therefore a lift.
The Magnus effect is a lift that results from the own rotation of a body in a viscous fluid. This is the principle of tennis balls cut off and of slices and hooks of golfers. The racket or the club prints the ball a rotation around itself. The high speed of the ball masks the effect on most of the trajectory. But towards the end, the Magnus effect prevails and the ball deviated sharply to the right or left hand.
Purely source or sink flows are unstable because of the principle of Hamilton. There are only stable sink or source flows with whirls, i.e. with rotation (they are frequently called "vortex" although the vortex is only, for specialist, the hollow part of the whirl when existing. Additionally, I would mention that "sinks" are frequently called "wells" in Fluid Mechanics).
Whirl-well flows are irrotational, as each component. Contrary to appearance, particles do not rotate in such fluid flows. They make one revolution around themselves in the opposite direction of rotation of the whirl during a complete revolution of the overall fluid. As a consequence, at any moment, the kinetic moment of their own rotation is exactly opposite to the kinetic moment which corresponds to the overall movement of the whirling fluid. It is a remarkable property of these flows. Their behaviour is thus exactly the same for all fluids should they be perfect or viscous: frictions play no part in the flow.
In addition, the theory of these flows is not in line with experiment. The experimental free surface of whirl-well flows is always located above the theoretical free surface. This problem is not due to the viscosity, since the viscous fluid solution is the same. One attributed this difference to a drag by air. However, the calculation shows that the magnitude of the effect of that drag is 4 times smaller than the magnitude of the observed effect. This phenomenon results from the friction of fluid particles in the differential rotation relative to each other, which is not included in the viscous fluids theory. In this theory it is believed that friction in fluids result only relative velocities of fluid particles as for solids. It does not take into account the rotations.
Helmholtz' tubes are stable structures in perfect fluid. The endless tube with straight axis is the basis of the theory of vortices. In the case of fluids with free surface, the surface grow hollow because of the energy mobilised by the speed which is taken on the potential energy, i.e. the height of the liquid, as the pendulum, or the swing, increasing its kinetic energy into potential energy.
A particular case of Helmholtz' tubes is the Helmholtz' ring. The circular motions are centred on a circle in a plane perpendicular to the ring axis. This movement is three-dimensional. There is no expression of this solution of the equations of Fluid Mechanics. However, their stability is the consequence of these equations. The ring has a rotation around its main circle, but it can not have a rotation around the axis of the ring. It would break down by lack of reaction to the centrifugal acceleration.
Such a ring moves in the fluid by Magnus effect along its axis, according to its own rotation. Of course there can not be any such ring without fluid. Within viscous fluid, the own rotation motion of the ring causes a fluid flow through its central part. Two rings of the same axis thus attract or repel depending on their own rotation opposite or reverse.
Equations known as Navier-Stokes for viscous Newtonian fluids have only one known solution. It is the whirl-well flows. This solution is exactly the same as for perfect fluid solution: friction terms are null. In both cases, the tangential speeds are inversely proportional to the distance from the centre of the flow. The radial speeds are proportional to distance. They are indeed plane, cylindrical flows. The fluid flow rate through a cylinder with the same axis as the flow is constant and therefore the speed is proportional to the radius of the cylinder.
Pure well flow is the only known mathematical solution in three dimensions. It is identical for both fluid viscous and perfect fluid. The radial speed of the fluid is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of wells. The implementation of Hamilton's principle shows that this solution is not stable. It has to start rotating. However, rotation implies the existence of an axis. The rotation is a plane motion. A theorem of Poincaré shows that the whirl concentrates in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the whirl. In these conditions, the flow outside the main plane of the whirl flow is no more in line with the principle of Hamilton. This results in a zonal rotation each side of the main plane of the whirl. Each zone will be compressed towards to the main plan. The same reasoning may be continued each side so that, at the end, the overall shape of this flow looks like a spherical flow made of alternative zones. In these lateral areas, there is no balance of angular moment of fluid particles. Thus, the rotation of the whirl of each zone shall turn in the opposite direction of the neighbouring zone. Between two sequential zones develops an eddy zone. The axes of these eddies within intermediate zones are radial, i.e. in the direction of the centre of the main whirl, which is also the centre of the well flow. They are bearing zones in a way.
The tangential speed of the fluid in the zonal whirls is inversely proportional to the distance to the main axis of the whirl. This is what makes the whirl-well flows of fluid mechanics unusable for gravitation. It needs an additional assumption. We have seen it. It is the introduction of the angular momentum of the fluid particles. The equipartition doubles the term relating to the kinetic energy and leads to a tangential velocity inversely proportional to the square root of the distance from the well.
A similar and interesting case is the formation of Helmholtz' tubes in discontinuities of planes flows with friction. These tubes form the famous alternate double streets of Bénard-Von Karmann. This phenomenon also exists in superfluids in rotation in a cylindrical bucket, but there is only one line of vortices generated at the surface and moving towards the cylinder centre. This line may finally take the form of a matrix distribution while increasing rotation speed.
There are no solutions in non-Newtonian fluids. In these fluids, frictions are proportional to the difference of speed between the fluid elements. This is the case of flow of sand and more generally of colloidal suspensions.
Contrary to popular belief, the action of a perfect fluid on a body moving in the fluid is not zero. This is the d'Alembert's paradox. This results from the symmetry of solutions of perfect fluid equation. But this is because the kinetic theory of gases is not taken into account by fluid mechanics theory. In fact, the drag effect exists for perfect fluid. The effect of a fluid without viscosity on a body moving with regard to the fluid can only be understood by the statistical approach of kinetic theory of gases. The speed of a body relative to the fluid changes the apparent mean square velocity of agitation of the fluid particles and thus the pressure on the body. The upstream side pressure is increased and decreased downstream side. A body moving in a perfect fluid, considered also as an ideal gas, has a drag when moving against the fluid. This drag allows using fluid wells even when the fluid is perfect, i.e. without friction, to explain ether action on bodies.
Finally there is inevitably composition of speeds in ether! We can not propose ether, without considering the effects of a relative speed of the body relative to ether should it be a perfect fluid or a viscous fluid.
Problems related to light
A major interest of fluids is to explain the speed of waves that propagate inside. It is a major result of the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics. The speed of waves is the mean square speed of components of the fluid with a Brownian agitation. This law is general. It is not based upon any assumption about the nature of the components of the fluid.
This is certainly one of the most extraordinary results of all physics: there should be no additional assumption! Of course, the application of thermodynamics to ether is not directly possible. The temperature is a characteristic of atoms and their electronic layers. This phenomenon does not exist if the ether is composed of elastic particles. It requires assumptions about the properties of these particles. It follows that the calculation of the speed of the waves of ether is not a copy paste of the calculation made for the gas. However, the kinetic theory of gases applies perfectly. The problem is the value of the celerity of light. The calculation of this speed requires assumptions about the particles of ether.
These waves are the propagation of a pressure variation. They are essentially longitudinal. Gases do not transmit necking waves i.e. transverse waves. Again, you need an additional assumption. What is remarkable is that this is the same as gravity. If the fluid particles have an angular momentum, then it is transmitted transversely upon impact of the particles between them. Deformation of the fluid particles prevents them from sliding over the other and the angular momentum can be transmitted transversely.
The second problem is related to the corpuscular effects of light.
There is no doubt that waves in liquids are spherical. If the liquid has a free surface, like ocean, it may carry waves precisely known as surface waves, in addition to the spherical wave. Indeed, the spherical waves become plane waves quickly because of the bottom, or walls. But these waves are never treated as rays or beams.
The situation is very different in air and gases in general. If the waves in the air were really spherical, there would be no reason why we may improve their range by putting our hands like a bullhorn in front of the mouth. Testing and measuring the noise of machinery is performed in anechoic chambers, i.e. devoid of echoes. The walls are covered with a multitude of small pyramids, which absorb sound, and therefore do not reflect it. In these rooms, you have to stand in front of your interlocutor to hear what he says. The sound does not spread so spherical. In a normal room, echoes give the impression that the sound spreads in all directions. In fact, the sound is made up of wave trains of limited transverse dimensions. Coming out of the mouth, these wave trains have the transverse dimension of the mouth. This transverse dimension increases with distance. This phenomenon results from the complex molecules of air. The molecules in the periphery of the wave trains drag their neighbours by friction.
An ether composed of particles similar to spheres would not have such dispersion, as there would be no friction. Dispersion would be the much lower the corpuscle surface is smoother. These assumptions are easy to think. It is therefore fully acceptable to model light and similar waves in the form of wave trains in a perfect fluid, in the sense of fluid mechanics, and these wave trains have a limited transverse dimension. The cross section is that of electrons or other particles, which generate waves by their own oscillations. The duration of these oscillations determines the length of the wave trains. Its wavelength is the amplitude of the particle own oscillations. Recall that the vibration of an electron results in the formation of two wave trains in opposite directions corresponding to its vibration.
As a conclusion, despite some positive aspects, the results of the kinetic theory of gases and Fluid Mechanics can in no way be used directly for fluid ethers to explain gravity and light. Such ethers can not comply with experiments.
The three critical issues are the transverse nature of light, the action of fluid proportional to the apparent surface of the body and the law of tangential velocities in the whirl. These speeds do not depend on the distance in the galaxy and they are inversely proportional to the square root of the distance from the Sun in the solar system and satellites of planets.
This is the reason why all authors provide additional assumptions such as the angular moment of ether corpuscles.
The paradigm of facts
The fourth part of the book is devoted to the paradigm of the facts. These are mainly experiments on gravity and light. This is only a small part of the paradigm of physics. It contains virtually no experiments related to particles, even the most fundamental. There are only a few experiments on the spectral lines of atoms.
Electromagnetic phenomena have been limited to those which involve the propagation and polarisation of light.
The return to ether collects a broad consensus. Ether is possible only if it complies with the facts of the experimental paradigm, possibly by assigning some of these facts to different causes, but they must be addressed. An ether which would not comply to experiments had little chance of success.
The lack of compliance is never absolutely prohibitive. Difficulties may have escaped the authors of theories. The magnitude of the work required to develop a theory is always beyond the means of individual author. So that great caution is necessary in judging compliance. We know the Churchill’s answer to a question about the explanation of his political rise: "I went from failure to failure." Failure is a challenge. The best ideas come after the worst difficulties.
Gravity and inertia
1. GEOMETRIC MECANICS
1.1. Preliminary remarks
Geometric mechanics is the study of the motion of a theoretical point of mass defined by differential analysis and geometry. This is obviously a fiction. A point can not have mass. On the other hand, the motion can in no way be inside a body. Geometric mechanics study some motions in nature without worrying about their causes or their conditions. These assumptions show the limitations of this method.
1.2. Spaces and reference frames
The reference frames are directly related to the concept of geometric space. Geometric space would be a reality. In the relativistic theory, the photon is moving at a speed completely independent of everything. Geometric mechanics would be the direct expression of reality. The motion should be reported to a reference mark and could be considered as a determination belonging to bodies. It follows the basic assumptions of the theories of Relativity, that the distances are not simple relative determinations, but also that they be given a measurable physical reality, they would be modified by speed.
The motion of the photon is independent of the chosen reference frame. The movement of the photon is an absolute.
Under the relativistic doctrine, time is considered as a reality, like space. The time is measured, although it is impossible to directly compare times. One should stay in the past to ensure that the initial moment is in coincidence with the beginning of time standard, while awaiting the future to verify the coincidence of the end of this time standard with the duration to be measured. One is only able, in fact, to measure distances and angles. You can only juxtapose lengths or angles. We can only compare lengths or angles between them. And yet, this is with tremendous difficulties, as Einstein shows. How, indeed, ensure that both ends of the standard length remain in coincidence with the two ends of the length to be measured if we do not have a means of infinite speed information transmission? Indeed, as enormous as this speed, as long as it is finite, the coincidence can not be assured without a risk of error causes by the motion of one of those ends during the time necessary for transmitting the information. As a corollary, relativists believe that it is not possible to be assured that two moments are simultaneous and thus be assured of simultaneity.
1.4. Conservation of Mass or Lavoisier's principle
The mass is considered that exists in things. Also it must remain strictly invariant globally. However, atoms have a mass defect the greatest the most stable they are. The lack of mass is the difference between the actual mass of atoms, measured by spectrograph, and the total mass of their constituents.
In a fission or fusion of atoms, there is a loss of mass, or gain of mass in some fusions. This change in mass corresponds to a gain or loss of stability of the generated elements compared to the initial elements. For relativists, the mass would be equivalent to energy. The mass is transformed into energy in nuclear reactions. This is the famous relation E = mc2.
1.5. Energy Conservation
Within the frame of the relativistic theory, the sum mass plus energy is maintained. Energy alone would not do so.
1.6. Hamilton Principle
The action is always an extremum. It is assumed that the motions that occur are always those that lead to greater energy dissipation.
This principle is regarded as the only valid in the wake of the upheaval brought by the theories of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics.
2. WAVE MECHANICS
Wave mechanics is the study of wave propagation.
2.2. The speed of light
As part of the relativistic theory, the speed of light in vacuum and outside gravitational fields is an absolute.
2.3. The wave properties of electrons
We know that we can obtain diffraction rings with an homokinetic electron beam. Within the quantum theory of the associated wave, the electrons are inextricably linked to a wave. This side of the electrons causes the phenomenon.
We must add that the electron could only be located by a certain probability of presence. That is to say that its existence is probabilistic, while its associated wavelength in some way deterministic.
3. MECANIC PHYSICS
3.1 The mechanic physics is the study of body motions by the principles of mechanics.
Under the theory of General Relativity, gravity is seen as a continuous phenomenon.
3.2 The principle of inertia
In the absence of friction and obstacles, the motion of bodies continues without alteration of the speed. It makes no assumptions about the nature of the motion or its cause. However, it is the source of all the errors on motion of the Aristotelian or nominalistic type; motion and speed would be contained within things.
3.3. Life of the neutron
The lifetime of neutrons in motion is longer than their life still. These neutrons are formed and set in motion by cosmic rays during their entry into the atmosphere.
3.4. The astronomical clock in motion delay
An astronomical clock was transported by air. It was found that it delayed.
3.5. Cherenkov's effect
An electron entering a medium such as water at a speed exceeding the speed of light in this environment causes a so-called Cherenkov's radiation. It is compared to the shock wave in a gas caused by a projectile moving at a speed exceeding the speed of sound in this gas.
3.6. Motion of the electron
The energy required to accelerate an electron by an electric or magnetic field increases considerably when it approaches the speed of light.
3.7 Experiences Cavendish (1798) and Boys (1895)
In both cases, one measures the attraction due to gravity between bodies. These experiments were repeated in 1927 and 1930 by Heyl.
Two masses are attached to the ends of a torsion pendulum carefully isolated from temperature changes and drafts even lower. Two largest masses are placed near the end of the pendulum. One measures the angle of rotation of the pendulum according to the distance between the latter bodies to those fixed to the pendulum. A more accurate method is to measure the period of oscillation of the pendulum. These measures allow for calculating the attraction of gravity constant, universal constant. It is from the knowledge of the value that is determined the mass of stars.
3.8 Experience and Zeemann Eötvös (1890)
The experience of Eötvös and Zeemann also uses a torsion pendulum with equal masses at its ends but at different altitudes, creating an asymmetry.
One can increase the asymmetry by using unequal masses. One measures the action of the Earth's gravity and the centrifugal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth.
This experience shows that one can not distinguish the gravity from acceleration.
4 COSMIC MECANICS
4.1 The cosmic mechanics is the study of the motion of stars and satellites in space.
4.2 Foucault's Pendulum (1851)
The Foucault pendulum is a piece of iron suspended by a steel wire. It oscilates, but it also rotates. The Foucault pendulum highlights the Earth's rotation.
4.3. Perihelion advance of Mercury
The long axis of the ellipse described by Mercury, orbits the Sun.
4.4 Acceleration of Phobos
Phobos is gradually accelerated in its rotation around Mars. Phobos speed is too low for the Theory of General Relativity to explain this phenomenon. This phenomenon has not currently any explanation recognised by the entire scientific community.
4.5 Motion of satellites
Satellites have very irregular motions. In particular, they are assigned zonal disturbances that remain unclear, although well known and used for correcting trajectories of artificial satellites.
All the planets are in the vicinity of the equatorial plane of the Sun. This is the case of the Earth. The plane of the trajectory of the Earth is called the Ecliptic. This plan has no specific role. It is a form of anthropomorphism that we brought the trajectory plane of other planets in the ecliptic plane.
This phenomenon has no explanation recognised by the entire scientific community.
Poincaré published in 1901 (Poincaré, Œuvres mathematiqes © Gauthier-Villars, 1951 Volume VII p 41 to 217) important papers on the rotating fluid masses. He highlighted, mathematically, the appearance of flattened figures in condensing and rotating fluids. This phenomenon has been mentioned several times on a qualitative point of view to explain the equatorial concentration of stars. Yet the complex studies of Cournot (addition to the translation of the System Herschel, on the distribution of cometary orbits) seem to show, a gap for the Sun system body inclinations compared with the Gaussian distribution.
4.7 Natural Satellites
Most satellites turn around their planet in similar position of the planets (4.6) in relation to the Sun. This phenomenon remains unexplained.
All stars are in the vicinity of the main plane of galaxies. This phenomenon has no explanation recognized by the entire scientific community.
There are body ejected by quasars, it seems that the ejection speeds are five to ten times the celerity of light. This phenomenon is explained by the assumption that we see the body edgewise. (among others: Another source exceeding the speed limit; Mon.Not.R.Astr. Soc. 1976-177)
4.10 The rings of Saturn
This phenomenon remains unexplained.
4.11 The Oceans are driven by a counter-equatorial current and two tropical currents. It can also distinguish counter-currents in the temperate zones and polar currents.
The theories do not use the current conceptions of gravity. The thermo-saline theory is not pertinent. A difference in temperature or density may causes vertical current or diffusion current. The theory of salinity makes no account of the widespread distribution of these currents in all oceans, practically independent of the shape and position of the continents and the seabed. This theory can not, under any circumstances, explain the Antarctic current. Its temperature is constant. It has a dedicated explanation. This current would be specific and causes by winds. Additionally, all the theories proposed apply only to the Earth, while the Sun's surface and the gaseous planets are also covered by differential currents that remain unexplained.
4.12 The Sun and the gaseous planets turn around themselves. Their rotation speed on themselves decreases with latitude.
This phenomenon remains unexplained.
4.13 Rotation of galaxies
The tangential speed of stars in galaxies is not compatible with the visible body mass of galaxies. One measures the speed of ionised gas in galaxies. The speed of rotation, around 200 Km/s is independent of distance. It lacks 90% of the mass of galaxies. This mass can not be at the centre of galaxies, the rate should decrease slower than under the laws of Newton, because of the presence of visible stars. In reality, it does not decrease at all. This missing mass must be in halos encompassing the full extent of galaxies. The same proportion of missing mass is obtained by measuring the deflection of light by galaxies. It also obtains the same result by measuring the velocities of galaxies rotating around each other.
This phenomenon remains unexplained.
4.14 Gravity reference frame drag by the rotation of the Earth
This was announced by Einstein in 1918, was confirmed in 2004 by measurements of the orbits of satellites Lageos I and II. The orbits have been moved from 2 m per year in the rotation of the Earth. The evidence of this phenomenon with NASA Probe B satellite failed.
Lights and waves
1. GEOMETRICAL OPTICS
1.1. Preliminary remarks
The geometrical optics is based on the basic concept of light ray and the principle of Fermat. Its aim is to use the results of geometry and trigonometry to study some properties of waves propagating in a medium. There is a geometric acoustics as well as a geometrical optics.
It suffices to verify afterwards that the experiment confirms the results of this theoretical point of view, but the geometrical optics gives excellent results with regard the accuracy of our measurements. We will here instead look for reasons for this match.
1.2. Rectilinear propagation
In its current state, involving probability of presence, one can only say that the photon has a probability to propagate in a straight line. It can therefore be assumed that the photon theory reflects the concept of rectilinear propagation.
1.3. The principle of Fermat
The Einstein's photon verifies the principle of Hamilton, which is a generalisation of Fermat's principle.
1.4 Celerity of light
We can not completely separate the geometrical optics of the physical optics. Although this problem has been discussed in the previous section, it is necessary to mention it here, because the Fermat's principle assumes the celerity of light in media is known.
The celerity of the photon is determined by one of the postulates of Einstein. This is an absolute called celerity of light, although it is also the speed of all electromagnetic waves. The celerity of light depends upon the media in which it propagates.
1.5 Aberration of fixed stars
Telescopes show an apparent displacement of so-called fixed stars. These stars can be regarded as fixed because of the duration of the measures and their distance to Earth.
This apparent displacement results from the motion of the Earth. This phenomenon was discovered in 1728 by Bradley. The similar experiment of Boscovitch-Airy will be discussed with the Fizeau's experiment.
There should be no difference between a star moving relative to an observer and an observer moving relative to a star. However, aberration does not exist if the star is moving relative to the Earth.
1.6 Fixed stars parallax.
Bessel identified in 1840, the parallax of fixed stars. It results from the change in direction of a star when the observer moves from one point in space to another. It's simple geometry.
1.7 Dispersion of light
This phenomenon is known since time immemorial by rainbows. It was explained by Descartes as a consequence of the laws of refraction, but Newton was the first to attribute it to the celerity of light in the refracting media showing that it depends upon the colour and hence the wavelength. This is a consequence of the wave nature of the photon.
The explanation of the Doppler-Fizeau's effect involves the speeds of sources and observers relative to the medium propagating the waves. Crests of waves in a medium succeeded one another faster before an observer moving in the medium in the opposite direction of the waves propagation than before an observer stationary in the medium and a fortiori to an observer moving in the medium in the direction of the waves. The Doppler-Fizeau's effect results from motions of observers and sources relative to the medium where waves are propagating.
For the photon, there is no medium. This phenomenon results from the slowing down of time and shortening of lengths, in the considered reference frame in motion. It should be noted that the calculations from the Lorentz' formulas lead to values of the wavelength shift, due to speed, larger than those obtained from the Doppler formula. Additionally there is a transversal effect. This is confirmed by experiment.
1.9. Ives and Stilwell's Experiment
This experiment is to compare the wavelengths of atoms in motion, measured in the direction of their motion and in the opposite direction. One measures a frequency shift greater than indicated by the Doppler-Fizeau's effect in line with the relativistic approach.
2. UNDULATORY OPTICS
2.1 Preliminary remarks
The undulatory optics gathers the wave properties of electromagnetic waves.
2.2 The wave nature of light
Newton has discovered the wave property of light during his experiments related to light rings, which bear his name. Newton attributed the phenomenon to the penetration of light in a fluid medium that would have surrounded matter. This medium would have been vibrating like water under the action of a stone. Light itself would not have a wave nature. Since then, it has been discovered that interference may occur also far from any matter. Thus light itself shall be a vibration.
The light rays undergo a phase shift in passing in the immediate vicinity of a screen. Its result from a phenomenon of interference with light rays passing farther.
The proximity of matter, atoms or molecules, according to this experiment, has an influence on the motion of photons. A photon that passes through matter has a speed different from that of photons that propagate in vacuum. The diffraction effect is independent of the nature of the screen. One can not attribute this phenomenon to an action of the electromagnetic field.
The fact that we obtained diffraction with electrons is considered an evidence of the associated wave theory.
2.4 Interference in weak light
Taylor was able to obtain, in 1909, perfectly normal interference using a light source of extremely weak intensity for a sufficient time.
This experiment led to the introduction of the probability of presence of the photon. If the photon is a localised corpuscle, it could pass only through one of the slots of the interferometer. Each photon will hit the screen to a point. Although due to the Heisenber's principle, its position can only be known with some approximation, it can be demonstrated quite readily that the necessary condition for the photon to pass through a slot is incompatible with the condition necessary for obtaining interference. We must therefore extend the notion of uncertainty and envisage the probability of presence. The photon has the same probability of going through both slots. Interference occurs through this probability.
2.5 Polarisation of light
Huygens discovered the polarisation by refraction in 1690. Malus discovered polarisation by reflection in 1810. This phenomenon manifests itself in the extinction of a light beam after passing through polarisers oriented properly in relation to another. Polarisers are birefringent bodies. In the case of polarisation by reflection, the polarisation is obtained for the Brewsterian incidence.
The polarisation of photons results from the transversal nature of the electromagnetic vibration, which represents its associated wave. Polarising mirrors and media results from the nature of things. There is an electromagnetic model, known as the Silberstein's theory, explaining qualitatively the birefringence. One currently believe that polarisation is related primarily to the structure of matter. There is therefore nothing surprising that this phenomenon is so little known.
2.6 Kerr's Phenomenon
Kerr discovered in 1875 that birefringent properties can be given to most liquids by placing them in an electric field. It is considered as a proof of the correctness of Maxwell's postulates. This experiment would show the electromagnetic nature of light.
It may be noted that the liquid subjected to an electric field has a disposition for the birefringence, even without passage of light. There is an intermediary between the light and the electric field.
This form of birefringence is related to the magnetic moments of electrons.
The currently accepted model involves an angular moment of photons.
2.7 Magnetic birefringence
This phenomenon, discovered by Cotton and Mouton, is quite comparable to the previous one. Just replace "electric" with "magnetic"
2.8 Accidental birefringence
Bodies subjected to compression and flowing fluids have birefringence properties. These phenomena do not provide any new information regarding the polarisation.
2.9 Rotatory polarisation
Arago discovered rotatory Polarisation in 1811. Quartz, some isotropic body and some solutions have the property of rotating the polarisation direction of light.
Kuhn's theory allows accounting for this phenomenon in a particular case. This model assumes that the electromagnetic waves induce magnetic moments in molecules. This interesting theory is now replaced by taking into account the angular moment of electrons and photons, as for the Kerr's phenomenon.
2.10 Magnetic rotatory polarisation
This experiment, conducted in 1846 by Faraday showed that magnetic fields alter the arrangement of molecules in liquids such as carbon disulphide or some transparent body such as flints. It is this change that causes the rotatory polarisation. There is, in fact, no direct action of fields on light.
This experiment is thus attached to the previous two.
2.11 Rotatory dispersion
Rotatory dispersion was discovered by Biot and Arago. The rotation of the polarisation direction in the preceding experiments, depends on the wavelength of light.
Kuhn's theory gives only a qualitative result, exactly as the current position considering the angular moment of photons.
2.12 Zeemann's Effect and Stark's effect
The phenomena of decomposition of light rays by magnetic fields, Stark's effect, and electrical fields, Zeemann's effect, are related to the rotatory dispersion.
3. PHYSIC OPTICS
3.1 Preliminary remarks
The physic optics will be limited to optical phenomena related to propagation.
3.2 The celerity of light
The celerity of light is addressed within the framework of the theory of Relativity, as an absolute law of nature. The corresponding value is fully determined and invariant. This value was measured on numerous occasions and in many circumstances. It depends on the transparent medium where light propagates.
3.3 Fizeau's experiment
This experiment shows a difference in optical path between the path of light in a liquid flowing in the direction of the light and the same path in a liquid flowing in the opposite direction. Fizeau discovered a difference in optical path he attributed to a dragging factor of light by the liquid.
3.4 Boscovitch's and Airy's Experiment
This is the phenomenon of aberration of fixed stars observed with a telescope filled in with water. The aim was to show the dragging of light by water, i.e. to confirm the Fizeau's experiment described above.
The result of the Boscovitch's and Airy's experiment receives the same explanation as the Fizeau's experiment.
3.5 Michelson's and Morley's experiment (1885)
This experiment is to measure the effect of the speed of the Earth on the celerity of light. It shows that there is a residual effect at most equal to a few km/s instead of the 30 km/s expected in the framework of the Lorentz' ether. Miller established the systematic nature of this residual effect and its variation during the rotation of the Earth around itself and around the Sun in 1928. The results obtained by Miller were analysed and confirmed by Allais in 1998 with the most proven statistical analysis tools. The causes of this discrepancy have not yet been established.
Note: This experiment has taken a highly symbolic value. The calculation that would justify a shift of the bands representing the movement of the Earth in the ether is reproduced here, as an exception to the objective of this book.
The principle of the interferometer has been partially taken up by Sagnac, but it sent the two rays coming out of the semi-reflective mirror in two paths of travel directions on the edge of a shelf or rotating disc.
In the Michelson's interferometer, the two rays cover one or more round trips in two perpendicular directions, before returning on the semi-reflective mirror and interfering on the screen.
It is essentially two perpendicular metal arms, the semi-reflective mirror being fixed at their intersection. The source is fixed to one arm, the interferometer screen to the perpendicular arm.
In contrast to the Sagnac's disc Michelson's interferometer is not permanently in rotation. It is given a first position then turned by 90 degrees, where one measures the shift of the bands from their original position. One measures the shift of the interference bands between two positions of the Michelson's interferometer. The shift results from the difference in optical paths along the two perpendicular directions. This difference in optical paths follows from the geometry of the device. One seeks to determine the variation in the shift.
If one of the arms is perpendicular to the orbit of the Earth, turning the device by 90 degrees will place this arm in a direction parallel to the orbit. The opposite occurs for the other arm so that the direction of propagation of light in the device is changed accordingly.
The model of Lorentz' ether led to believe that the electromagnetic waves propagate through the ether at the celerity of light. This speed is of course independent of the speed of the source and the interference observation screen. The situation is that found in all media: when they are issued, waves within solid, liquid and gaseous media propagate at a speed linked to the media and relative to these media. But the Lorentz' ether is assumed to be fixed in space. Earth should move in relation to this ether.
Thus the light rays that go from O to M1 along the arm OM1 of the interferometer positioned in the direction of the speed of the Earth in the ether, travels a greater distance than the distance from O to M1 because M1 has moved with the Earth when the light reach the mirror M1 to reflect. Conversely, the distance d2' travelled by light between M1 and O is shorter than the distance M1O.
The mirror M2 moves transversely. Distance d" travelled by light from O to M2 is greater than the distance d from O to M2. It is also the return of M2 to O. The light propagates along both sides of a triangle OM2'O 'where M2' is the M2 position when the light reaches it and O' the position of O and when it returned.
travel times along each arm of the interferometer by light are respectively::
Time travels differ by a factor so that :
The result is a shift of all the interference bands when the device is turned by 90°.
3.6 Hoek's Experiment
The Hoek's experiment, like that of Fizeau, is a comparison of the celerity of light between two trips, but one of the trip is covered in water, the other in the air. Obviously, there is a difference in optical path. But it was to measure the variation depending on whether the experiment was conducted in the direction of travel of the Earth or in the opposite direction. He got no difference.
3.7 Sagnac's experiment
This experiment was conducted in 1913 in the air, and by Harress just before in 1912 in water. This was to show a composition of the celerity of light with the peripheral speed of a rotating disc.
A semi-reflecting mirror is placed on the rotating disc. It split the light beam coming from the source into two beams. Each beam is reflected successively by the three mirrors placed at the periphery of the disc. Both beams travel the same path, but each in one direction. The semi-reflecting mirror sends these beams on an interferometer. It measures the optical path difference between the two beams.
This difference is zero when the drive is stopped. But as soon as the disc rotates, there is a shift of the interference bands showing a difference of optical path. This difference is exactly that which can be calculated by considering that the tangential velocity of the disk along the beams paths are added or subtracted to the celerity of light depending on the route.
The theory of Relativity does not and can not explain this phenomenon.
This experiment is considered an experimental proof of the validity of General Relativity, since Special Relativity does not justify the result. The metric corresponding to the rotation of a disc has not yet been obtained. An explanation based upon Quantum Mechanics was recently proposed. Why not?
4. QUANTUM OPTICS
4.1 Preliminary remarks
The approach combines the phenomena resulting from the discontinuous nature of light consisting of photons.
4.2 Radiation Pressure
The theory of waves in the media allows for explaining a pressure wave effect on an obstacle. The theory is verified in the water as well as in the air. It is the Maxwell- Bartholi's pressure.
It is by its wave nature that the photon has a radiation pressure. As this reasoning could be thought as a bias, it was proposed recently to assign it to photon angular moments.
4.3 Energy of light
Any wave carries energy. The waves of the sea may destroy dikes, the waves of the atmosphere may break windows. But the comparison stops at these qualitative images, because the light is corpuscular and thus quantified.
The discontinuous nature of the spectra called spectrum lines of atoms, led to postulate that light consists of quanta of energy, the photons. Photons carry an energy proportional to their frequency.
4.4 The photoelectric effect
Hallwachs discovered the photoelectric effect in 1888. Light can extract electrons from some bodies. The ejection velocity depends from the wavelength of light, but it is independent from intensity. On the other hand, the number of electrons ejected depends directly from this intensity.
Planck's Law w= hν explains this effect.
4.5 Compton's Effect
The Compton's effect is a kind of photoelectric effect where light is not completely absorbed. In addition to the electron emitted, there is a light wave of reduced frequency as a function of energy required ejecting the electron.
Photon theory explains the Compton’s effect as photoelectric effect. The incident frequency is higher than the frequency required for ejecting an electron.
4.6 Aspect's Experience (1981)
Pairs of photons are produced by a source consisting of calcium atoms. The photons are counted and their polarisation direction is measured in two directions on one side of the source and in two directions on the opposite side.
Correlation of the directions of polarisation is demonstrated in these counts. The probability of such correlation was calculated on the basis of the axioms of Quantum Mechanics. It is verified by experiment. Experiments of this kind have subsequently confirmed this result.
This probability is inconsistent with the Bell inequalities that govern the statistics phenomena.
For some physicists, the quantum inseparability, demonstrated by this experiment should lead to abandon the relativistic causality.
5. COSMIC OPTICS
The cosmic optics is the study of phenomena related to the propagation of light and electromagnetic waves. It should be noted that the aberration of fixed stars has been studied in the geometric optics because it involves the motion of the Earth, as a first approximation. In fact, it should also be examined the reciprocal case of star motion effect. The results and explanations are the same. The cosmic optics is thus limited to changes that can undergo light in its propagation, especially in the vicinity of stars.
5.2 The deviation 1a light by the Sun
The General Relativity theory allows calculating a value equal to the measured deviation. Light is regarded as obeying the laws of mechanics in a space-time distorted by the mass of the Sun. Gravity is in fact identified with the acceleration.
5.3 solar wavelength redshift
There are several experiments on this type of phenomenon. The one in question here concerns the redshift of spectrum lines of atoms located at the surface of the Sun relative to lines of identical atoms located on the surface of the Earth.
The theory of General Relativity gives a result in agreement with measurements, although several corrections are made to the measures. These corrections are of the same order of magnitude as the measured phenomenon.
5.4 Additional redshift when star passes behind the Sun
One measured a drop in frequency during the travel of the Taurus A behind the Sun, in addition to the deviation. (The mass effect on Frequency, Science, 9 August 1968, NRL Washington DC)
This phenomenon remains unexplained.
5.5 Shift due to the gravity field of the Earth
There is a shift between the wavelengths of two atoms located at different altitudes on a vertical. This experiment was performed with masers. Using the Mössbauer's effect (This experiment is a bit complex to explain).
5.6 Measurement of light travel time Venus-Earth
Recent experiments have shown that there is some probability that the celerity of light is not independent of the movements of the Earth and Venus, used as a radar reflector. This is a probability because the difference is small and the measures have been taken up many times. (Spectroscopy letters, 4 (3 & 4) 79-84 / 1971)
If confirmed, this would be unexplained.
5.7 Hubble' Effect
There is a very important redshift of the absorption lines of atoms located in galaxies and quasars.
A slight asymmetry in the Hubble's effect, the RTS effect, was discovered. This asymmetry remains unexplained. The models should appeal according to some authors to the new concept of ageing of light. For others, one must assume the existence of a new particle that has not yet been identified on the Earth.
Very distant galaxies have luminosity less than the expected value. This phenomenon remains unexplained.
All these phenomena are related to the highly controversial assumption of the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe follows from the theory of General Relativity and the theory of the Big Bang. In this context, the extension is expected to slow over time. Unfortunately the low light of very distant galaxies shows that the expansion is accelerating. It has thus been added a new hypothesis: the black or dark energy.
5.8 The cosmic microwave background radiation or cosmic microwave fossil (CMBR)
In 1964, radio astronomers Penzias and Wilson discovered an isotropic radiation 2.7 ° K of unknown origin. It has been attached to the theory of the Big Bang. It would be a residual radiation.
Table of contents
First part : Questions and failures
Chapter 2 The paradoxes 22
Chapter 3 The fourth dimension 32
Chapter 4 The non-euclidian geometries 39
Chapter 5 The absolute 44
Chapter 6 Angular moments 50
Chapter 8 The magnetic field of electrons 59
Chapter 9 Paradigms 64
Second part :Alternative paradigms
Chapter 1 Innovative theories 85
Chapter 2 Information theories 90
Chapter 3 Unification by particles 92
Chapter 4 Unification by waves 94
Chapter 5 Ether and photons (Newton) 98
Chapter 6 Ether and vortices or rings 103
Chapter 8 Absolute fluid ether (LeSage and Yarkowski) 111
Chapter 9 Ether and whirls (Descartes) 115
Third part :The problems related to the utilisation
of fluid mechanics in cosmology
Chapter 1 Problems related to gravitation 123
Chapter 2 Problems related to light 127
Fourth part : The paradigm of facts
Chapter 1 Gravity and inertia 132
Chapter 2 Light and waves 141