Let's face it: today's physicists are still unable to explain clearly most phenomena such as light, gravity, atomic forces or magnetic fields. They simply ignore what is really going on.

A hypothesis is not a certainty; it must be proved.

Augustin Fresnel studied polarized light. He thought that transverse vibrations could explain this and he postulated that aether should be made of "material points separated by intervals" in order to transmit them.

However he was wrong.  Composite waves emitted simultaneously by many electrons can easily transmit transverse patterns. Such waves are regular longitudinal waves, but the interference pattern may undulate and even rotate.

The light waves can carry transverse patterns. This explains polarization.

Maxwell's equations only describe how energy carried out by light or radio waves will behave. They indeed yield correct results, but they are still just equations. Let's face it: James Clerk Maxwell never demonstrated that magnetic and electric fields could really travel through space.

It should be emphasized that scientists still do not understand the true nature of magnetic fields. They ignore what they are made of, and how they work mechanically.

In addition, one simply cannot check whether magnetic fields move through empty space or not because a material device must be used in order to detect them. This device may transform radio waves into electric and magnetic fields as well. 

It is a well known fact that Maxwell firstly imagined a mechanism made of interconnected aether vortices. However, he finally removed carefully any reference to a mechanism. Maxwell just elaborated a set of equations. He did not find what was really going on.

Clearly, his assumption that his equations describe moving electric and magnetic fields is highly disputable. There is a more acceptable possibility: radio waves are aether composite longitudinal waves capable of producing electric and magnetic fields while traveling through matter.

Maxwell was a great scientist. He was well aware that all this was uncertain. He wrote: "The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy". This means that it remains unexplained. However, physicists in radio electricity (especially Lorentz and Poincaré) became very familiar with his equations and finally, they all forgot that it was just a theory.

So there is a place for doubt. Scientists should be ashamed to be so confident, if not arrogant against searchers who still believe in the existence of the aether.

This was Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity most important postulate:

"The speed of light is the same in all Galilean inertial reference frames."

Surprisingly, this seems to be true. Many observers moving at different speeds will really record the same speed for light. However, this severely hurts common sense. One should investigate how come it is possible.

In 1904, Lorentz published his famous transformations and he showed that they could explain such a stunning result. He especially discovered that moving matter, including the observer and his instruments, should contract. He also found that clocks should tick slower. Finally, light does not really travel at the same speed in all reference frames: those transformations simply cancel the speed difference and the observer is mislead.

Hendrick Lorentz and Henri Poincaré discovered in 1904 that observers cannot detect their motion through aether. For example, Michelson's interferometer yields a null result because it contracts. Or Bradley's aberration is perfectly symmetric, etc. 

This does not mean that aether does not exist.

On the contrary, Lorentz was firmly convinced that aether should exist. So he established his equations (which he borrowed from Woldemar Voigt's Doppler equations) in accordance with the speed of light, which in his picture was absolute. He finally found that Voigt's constant k should be eliminated from his own transformations, because a stunning invariance occurs when  k = 1.

Lorentz's equations where established in accordance with the postulate that aether should exist.

The point is: all happens as if aether exists.

So, today's common assumption that Michelson's experience ruled out aether and that this hypothesis has been "abandoned" is definitely wrong. Nobody ever demonstrated that aether does not exist. It remains an acceptable hypothesis.

This is especially important because most phenomena and matter properties are still unexplained. For example, standing waves could explain magnetic fields, but they need an aether. In addition, matter particles clearly exhibit wave properties, but scientists never dare to show those waves, certainly because they cannot imagine waves without a medium...

You may read in Wikipedia:

"The Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment, by using arms of dissimilar lengths, tested for the hiding of the aether effects due to length contraction and found none."

This is false. Many scientists deduced from this that aether does not exist.

Actually, there was a serious omission: the frequency reduction. According to Lorenz, the apparatus (not space) should contract; however, the source frequency (not time) should also slow down. In such a case, the number of wavelengths along a transverse axis never changes whatever the speed is, and it remains also the same along the displacement axis after a 90° rotation because of the contraction.

Let's make it clear: the Kennedy-Thorndyke experiment was a mess. Michelson's interferometer needs only one arm, not two. A second arm, shorter or not, makes no difference.

Descartes discovered that light is made up of waves traveling in a medium which he called the aether.

Then Fresnel studied polarization and realized that this behavior could not be explained by regular longitudinal waves. So he supposed that the light waves should vibrate transversally.

This was the first mistake. Polarization can be explained by composite longitudinal waves, because the interference pattern can undulate transversally. This supposes that light is emitted by at least two sources, one of them being stable (for example a proton) and the other one (for example an electron) very slightly vibrating along a straight or circular path. Moreover, the electron frequency is constant, but the light frequency is that of the vibrations. Light is emitted on a secondary frequency.

Then Einstein studied the photoelectric effect and supposed that light should be made of particles because, according to Planck's constant, it always contains the same amount of energy for a given frequency.

This was the second mistake. Clearly, light is emitted by electrons. Why this constant amount of energy should be attributed to light instead of electrons? Electrons are present for both the light emission and reception. So the quantum properties of light may be allotted to electrons as well. Finally, the emitted light really contains the equivalent of a photon of energy, but it is still just waves.

And finally, Compton discovered the Compton effect. Did Compton explain how "his" photons work? No. Did he explain the true nature of electric and magnetic fields? No. Did he explain the electron mechanisms? No. All students should read how he interpreted his results. They will realize that there is a difference between a hypothesis and the truth. Nobody can transform so many uncertainties into certitude.

Gravity does not decrease according to the well known square or the distance law for any matter very close to the sun. It is null right at its center. This indicates that a calculus according to Einstein, that is an artificial space bending, would be preferable and may replace Newton's gravity law for small distances.

However, this is only a method, not a physical explanation.

Any intelligent person should realize that gravity cannot bend space.

The sun's gravity cannot deviate light because it is made of waves. However, space around the sun is filled with particles which can produce a lens effect. The result is the same, but the cause is not. It is a well known fact that light is severely deviated in the earth's atmosphere, even at very high altitudes.

This occurs because there are still some air molecules and other particles there. It should be the same around the sun, especially because it is much bigger. The same phenomenon should also occur around galaxies, which are surrounded with gas areas, but the lens effect there is certainly not perfectly regular because the gas distribution is not. 

The Fizeau experiment showed that moving transparent substances such as water could modify the light speed or produce a deviation. The point is that the solar wind particles are faster when their density is higher. Actually, they are sometimes very fast. This may partially cancel the deviation difference, but not exactly. So the deviation is certainly not constant, and the difference should become perceptible using more and more precise instruments.

This will indicate that Einstein's theory about a so-called space curvature is wrong.

In addition, blue light deviates more drastically than red light inside normal optical glass, but the difference becomes smaller for very light glass such as quartz or fluorite. It is even smaller for gas, and especially rarefied gas. So red and blue light deviation should be almost identical, but not exactly. The difference should become visible using sophisticated devices, and this would also indicate here that Einstein's ideas are wrong. As a matter of fact, space could not bend differently for red and blue light...

Any experimented astronomer should admit that Addington's results were highly disputable. In 1919, they should have pointed out that his small Newton telescope, suffering from unacceptable coma, could certainly not record so small a deviation. However, more recent results indeed indicate a deviation, but they are strangely reported in a mystic manner. Such people bowing very low in front of their Einstein prophet should be considered with suspicion. We need more objective data, which should not be constant. They will certainly not match exactly Einstein's predictions, which were probably influenced by previous astronomic observations.

And finally, gravity cannot change the light wavelength either. Matter undergoes severe constraints on a very large star. This certainly changes the way light is emitted, and especially its wavelength. The whole process may even be fully compromised under more severe conditions, making any light emission impossible.

Most of today's physicists believe that Newton's laws are still valid to a first approximation, but that they otherwise must be totally replaced by Einstein's Relativity. This is definitely wrong. Newton's laws can be upgraded in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, making them perfectly correct and much simpler.

Henri Poincaré discovered that the laws of physical phenomena are the same for an observer at rest and for an observer moving at a constant speed, making it impossible to determine whether he is moving or not. He was well aware that this should be the starting point for some new mechanics. 

From any observer's point of view, moving matter and all related phenomena undergo (or seem to undergo) the Lorentz transformations. A contraction occurs, the mass increases, the time there seems to slow down and the clocks do not indicate the same time on the displacement axis.

The goal is to take those phenomena into account in order to reformulate Newton's laws. For example, the mass gain is given by the gamma factor: gamma = 1 / sqr(1 – v^2 / c^2). Then kinetic energy, which is related to this gain, can easily be deduced from it. Finally, kinetic energy is not linked to Relativity any more; it is just a consequence of the Lorentz transformations. The formula below for kinetic energy is already well known and replaces Newton's inaccurate E = m v^2 / 2:

E = gamma * m – m

A simpler example is the action and reaction law. It will be fully accurate if one postulates that the field of force, which is located between two material bodies and responsible for this, is considered at rest. Then there are no action and reaction any more, just two opposite and equal actions. Suppose that a billiard ball hits another one. The calculus becomes simpler if both balls are considered to be in motion. If their mass is the same, they will simply bounce back at the same speed according to the formula above. The final step is to recover the observer's frame of reference. This means that Newton's action and reaction law must be upgraded to a double opposite and equal action law, which is true only if the field of force, not the observer, is considered to be at rest.

A Big Bang hypothesis is highly plausible because of the expanding universe, but actual descriptions of it appear quite imaginative, if not ridiculous.

The goal here is not to explain how the universe was created. This is beyond our knowledge, but we should ultimately be able to make an acceptable portrait of the situation in its very first moments. However, scientists definitely cannot succeed while most physical phenomena are still totally unexplained. The first question they should answer is: what is matter? So the past remains even more obscure as long as this question remains unanswered.

Obviously, the existence of an expanding aether would explain the expansion of very distant galaxies, whose speed is almost that of light. They may still be at rest with respect to the surrounding aether. Otherwise, because of the Lorentz transformations, they should be severely contracted in such a way that most of the universe matter would be concentrated near a sort of spherical "space wall". No matter could exist beyond this wall because it cannot reach the speed of light. In such a case, Hubble's constant could not really be constant, and so the theory of an expanding aether appears more acceptable.

What is matter? Well, matter is solely made out of electrons, which are spherical standing waves. Electrons and positrons can join together and transform into quarks, then into protons and neutrons. So, in the beginning of times, one can postulate that there was nothing but a very concentrated aether filled with waves. From a mechanical point of view, this appears quite possible.

This is a very alluring hypothesis because it is simple.

Most comments about this on the web are followed with the unavoidable "lol", which as far as I know means "Laugh out loudly".

However, it is a well known fact that most radio waves, and also X-rays and gamma are not stopped by matter the way light is. Because light is an exception, it would be simpler to postulate that those waves always go freely through matter. Then, in order to explain why light seems to be stopped, deviated or reflected, one can show that electrons react to light and emit some new light which phase is opposite.

Firstly, because its phase is opposite, this new light will interfere with the other one and produce a shade behind opaque objects.

Secondly, this new light will also produce a reflection in accordance with Huygens Principle.

An thirdly, because transparent material such as glass produces reflections through more than a full wavelength, their sum is null and the wave energy is transmitted from one electron to another. Then some new light is emitted on the other side. This phenomenon is possible only inside very homogenous substances.

The shade behind any opaque object can be calculated using Huygen's Principle:

This is the shade of a 1mm wire at 4 meters (about 13 feet).

This is possible if matter emits some new light which phase is opposite.

Now we can also use Mr. Delmotte's Virtual aether, which is a true laboratory for studying waves. The program below is in French, but I plan to translate the whole series into English:

Ether20.exe    Ether20.bas

And here are the results below. The upper opaque screen simply stops the waves, and a shade appears. The lower one rather emits new waves which phase is opposite. Surprisingly, the result is exactly the same. Both systems produce perfectly identical diffraction patterns. 

Plane waves come from the left.

The upper opaque screen is 10 wavelengths high. It stops the waves and produces a shade.

 The lower image rather shows a 10 wavelengths source emitting waves which phase is opposite.

Surprisingly, the result is exactly the same.

The Lorentz transformations were intended to correct the Doppler effect in order to make Maxwell's equations invariant in any moving frame or reference. Lorentz was strongly convinced that matter should contract. He was well aware that a time shift should occur, and also that clocks should tick slower.

Unfortunately, Lorentz's original equations do not yield correct results from this point of view. They rather indicate an expansion. They can be reversed, though, by swapping the x and x' variables:

x' =  g * x + beta * t

t' = g * t – beta * x

Then they produce the correct results. So the program graphics (see below) use the reversed equations, and one can easily see that all happens the way Lorentz predicted.

Surprisingly, the same formulas also produce a special Doppler effect involving a slower frequency. Here is a program showing this:

Doppler_Voigt_transformations.bas      Doppler_Voigt_transformations.exe

I am of an opinion that Lorentz's Doppler equations should always be present together with his original ones, in order to justify the correct contraction and the time effects.

It should be emphasized that the Lorentz transformations are the greatest of all laws about matter's mechanical behavior, making Relativity much less important. After all, Relativity is just a secondary result, that is, the result of any moving observer's errors.

Now, Relativity can be verified.

These conclusions are not disputable. Since one century, physicists wrote tons of weird ideas about the Lorentz transformations. Please bear in mind that those transformations belong to Lorentz, who was a great scientist. They should be explained the way Lorentz did. But they are not. Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Isn't this a shame? Fortunately, this is likely to change because computers cannot handle so inane ideas. If you are a pro in computer programming, you surely can check this. You will finally admit that Lorentz was right about matter contraction.

My own program on the Lorentz transformations displays the x' and t' values for a given beta normalized speed. One can use the cursors to modify beta, x and t. The program also displays a material body undergoing the transformations. There is no surprise. All happens the way Lorentz predicted.

Lorentz-Poincare-Doppler.bas      Lorentz-Poincare-Doppler.exe

In addition, I invented a device which reproduces the Lorentz transformations in a mechanical way. I called it the Time Scanner. Surprisingly, besides the contraction and the time shift, this scanner also displays a Doppler effect:

You should doubt this.

This was Descartes' recommendation. You should be extremely careful analyzing any of my hypotheses. But, reciprocally, you should also doubt all pseudo-certitudes which are common today.

Scientists may sometimes be wrong. Whatever their number is, it is not relevant because they all blindly accept today's well accepted ideas without verifying them. On the contrary, they reject this web site's content because it does not seem consistent with those ideas, also without verifying it.

To say it shortly, they never verify. They just memorize. Surprisingly, the lazy way is an effective one to obtain lucrative college and university degrees, but it is nevertheless the best one towards error.

For instance, scientists very rapidly reject my discovery that light is made of composite waves traveling through aether. This happens because of three superimposed errors. Firstly, they think that light is made of photons. Secondly, they think that moving transverse magnetic and electric fields are involved because of Maxwell's equations. And thirdly, they think that aether does not exist.

However, I know a lot about waves, and this web site proposes more and more flawless demonstrations. If you did not examine them, you are not entitled to reject them.

If you still believe that today's ideas are perfectly correct, then you are not a true scientist.

Think about it.