-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy pathsa_wavetheory.htm
1547 lines (1194 loc) · 81.2 KB
/
sa_wavetheory.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-gb">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta name="description" content="Explanation of matter and physic laws by standing waves.">
<meta name="keywords" content="physics, matter, standing waves, gravity, Relativity, Lorentz transformation, electron, atom, light, Doppler effect, fields, electricity, magnetism">
<title>The Wave Theory</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#E1E1E1">
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="matter.htm"><img border="0" src="images/fleche_agg.gif" width="159" height="31"></a><a href="sa_chemistry.htm"><img border="0" src="images/fleche_ag.gif" width="162" height="31"></a><a href="sa_postulates.htm"><img border="0" src="images/fleche_ad.gif" width="133" height="31"></a><a href="sa_conclusion.htm"><img border="0" src="images/fleche_add.gif" width="146" height="31"></a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="6">THE WAVE
THEORY</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Explaining Matter and
Relativity.</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/motion01.gif" width="362" height="219">
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Planes simulating waves
traveling in a moving frame of reference.</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Transverse AB'A' round
trip absolute distance and time according to the gamma factor</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">:
1 / (1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font><sup>
2 </sup>)<sup> (1 / 2)</sup>
</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/motion02.gif" width="423" height="146">
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Longitudinal AC'A' round
trip absolute distance and time according to </font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">the
gamma factor </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">squared: 1 / </font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font><sup>
2 </sup>)<sup> </sup>
</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="center"> </p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>A wave theory for matter and all forces.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Aether
exists. Matter is made of spherical standing waves. All forces work
using waves.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Because
any wave exerts a radiation pressure, the result is motion. This motion
is energy. Because this energy as motion surely involves the Doppler effect, one should
understand what is going on while a standing wave structure moves
through aether. This leads to the Lorentz transformations.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
means that standing waves inside matter must obey the Lorentz
transformations. So matter itself must contract on its displacement axis. It must
also slow down its evolution speed.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Surprisingly,
this leads to Relativity. Lorentz's Relativity.</p>
<p align="left"><b>The Postulates.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Most
of the wave theory postulates were listed in my first book <i><b>La Théorie de l'Absolu</b></i>
( The theory of Absolute) in may 2000. Here is the most recent version :</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><a href="sa_postulates.htm">The
Wave Theory Postulates</a></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
electron is nothing but a spherical standing wave system. Its waves are
submitted to the Doppler effect while it is moving. Such a moving
electron will be shown a little later. Here, waves are concentric
while the electron is at rest :</p>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</font>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="4" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6">
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/electron.0.gif" width="335" height="272"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The electron at rest.</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/amplitude00.gif" width="799" height="390">
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The electron's amplitude
diagram.</font>
</p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>Lorentz was right.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
Lorentz transformations were found by both Hendrik Lorentz and Henri
Poincaré, who were very good friends. They worked on Woldemar Voigt's
transformations for almost ten years, using Maxwell's equations, and
they finally found the correct value in 1904.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> Einstein made a mistake
using the Lorentz transformations in order to build up his version of
Relativity. He did not admit that aether was a must. He spoke about "space contraction" and "time
dilation". Definitely, this was a very weird and inane idea. </p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Lorentz
spoke about aether, matter contraction and clocks slowing down instead. I strongly believe that he was right. By
May 2000 I
wrote a French book about "The
theory of Absolute". I explained that the aether exists and that matter was
made of standing waves. I also showed that Hendrik Lorentz explained
Relativity far better than Albert Einstein did. However, nobody believed
him because he could not explain why matter should transform this way.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Then I tried to understand what was
wrong with Lorentz's formulas. I
noticed that speed must be evaluated using space and time units. The
point is that the Lorentz equations are already using space
x and time t units, <b><i>plus</i></b> speed units and so space and
time again. Clearly, any equation using such redundant values could not
work properly. There should be something wrong about speed.</p>
<p align="left"><b>The speed of light.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Lorentz's
equations actually induce a wrong interpretation of Relativity because
the speed of light is just "c" for both frames of reference,
while space and time magnitudes are not the same. There is no c' speed.
It is not possible to know for sure whether the speed of light is to be
converted into x' and t' measures instead of x and t. In addition, x'
and t' stand for distances and time in the frame of reference which is
stationary. Using x and t for the stationary one would be more logical.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Because
of this uncertainty, it is not possible to prefer the frame of reference
which is stationary any more. Both frames are apparently equivalent. This page will show that one must use a
stationary Cartesian
frame of reference instead in order to respect Lorentz's
ideas.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">However,
the new set of equations will only show what will happen inside a moving
system. Then it will be much more difficult to predict what a
moving observer will see. As far as I know, <b><i>nobody</i></b> made this
calculation correctly. Poincaré noticed that such an observer
could not know whether he was moving or not, and he first spoke about
Relativity in 1904.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">But
Lorentz was still sure about the aether. Fortunately, many people
rediscover today this "new" Lorentzian Relativity.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Because
matter is made of waves, one can today see that any motion should be the
result of a series of longitudinal round trips or transverse zigzag
displacements, whose speed is always that of the light.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Moreover
Lorentz's equations indicate x values for space and t values for time.
But they also indicate v and c values. Because any speed is the result
of both x and t values, such values for speed appear to be redundant.
One can simply remove them from Lorentz equations. And because it is not
necessary to show a reciprocity, the new set of equations will be very
simple:</p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="4" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="6">
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">x ' = x cos </font><font size="4" face="Symbol">q</font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
+ t sin </font><font size="4" face="Symbol">q</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">t ' = t
sin </font><font size="4" face="Symbol">q </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span lang="FR-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
FR-CA;mso-fareast-language:FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>x sin </font><font size="4" face="Symbol">q</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
<p align="left"><b>Energy.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">From
a mechanical point of view, matter works using waves whose speed is
constant. The radiation pressure is a force inducing motion, and motion
is energy. This happens because of the Doppler effect. Compressed waves
contain more energy, in a way very similar to a "subsonic boom".</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">More
energy inside matter means new mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation :</p>
<p align="center">E = mc<sup> 2</sup> </p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">It
must be pointed out that Newton's equation (v is for velocity) for kinetic
energy is :</p>
<p align="center">E = mv<sup> 2</sup> / 2</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">However,
this equation only shows <b><i>effective</i></b> kinetic energy. For
slow speeds, the
total energy involved is doubled. One can easily understand
that a billiard ball can push another one, but it is also slowed down during
the process. This <b><i> deceleration</i></b> obviously needs as much energy as is
needed for accelerating the other ball. So the total energy involved
during the process is given by:</p>
<p align="center">E = mv<sup> 2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">On
the other hand, Lorentz
showed that the matter mass increases while it approaches
the speed of light. The gamma factor indicates the gain value :</p>
<p align="center">
<font face="Symbol" size="4">
g</font> = 1 / (1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font><sup>
2 </sup>)<sup> 1 / 2</sup> with <font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font> =
v / c
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
For example 2 times more while
</font>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b
</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> = .866 c, or 7 times more while </font><font face="Symbol" size="4">b
</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> = .99 c. </font></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The
net mass gain
m' is worth 7071 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
1 = 7070 times while </font><font face="Symbol" size="4">b
</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> = .99999999 c. This additional mass is pure
condensed kinetic energy. It
represents almost all of its energy for speeds very near to c.
</font></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> For
such a high speed there is no need to spill half of Newton's kinetic
energy any more, in order to stop a future 1 kilogram billiard ball when it is increased to 7071 kilograms. So the
equation for <i><b> kinetic energy</b></i> as a mass gain
m' surely is given by:</p>
<p align="center">E = m'c<sup> 2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Let's
prove it. The energy "E" must be measured in joules, the mass
"m" in kilograms and the speed "v" or "c" in
meters per second. Note that "c squared" means (1000 * 300000
km/s) ^ 2, about
9 * 10 ^ 16. Suppose a one kilogram meteorite is moving toward the Earth at .01 c (1860 miles or 3000 km per second). It contains .00005
kilogram as
m' kinetic energy :</p>
</font><p align="center">
<font face="Symbol" size="4"> b</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> =
.01 <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" lang="FR-CA">m
= 1</span> </p>
<p align="center"><font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font> = 1 / (1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font> <sup> 2 </sup>)<sup> 1 / 2</sup>
= 1.00005</p>
<p align="center">m' = <font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font> m <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–
m = </span><font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font> <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–
1 = .00005 </span> </font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="center">E = m'c<sup> 2</sup></p>
<p align="center">E = .00005 * 9 * 10<sup> 16</sup> joules</p>
<p align="center">E = 4.5 * 10<sup> 12</sup> joules.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
should produce a gigantic explosion. Now,
according to Newton, the v squared speed is worth (.01 * 1000 * 300,000) ^ 2, about
9 * 10 ^ 12 and the mass m is not
significantly increased (1.00005). It still is about one kilogram :</p>
<p align="center">E = mv<sup> 2</sup> / 2</p>
<p align="center">E = 1 * 9 * 10<sup> 12</sup> / 2</p>
<p align="center">E = 4.5 * 10<sup> 12</sup> joules.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> This
is consistent with Einstein's equation, at least while the mass increase
is not significant. Otherwise the mc squared equation should prevail.
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">For example, one could suppose a .866 c speed. Then the gamma factor is 2. Moving at .866 c, a 2
kilogram meteorite can theoretically push a standing 1 kilogram one until it reaches .866 c. Note
that the latter will then equal 2 kilograms and the first, only one,
in accordance with the law of conservation of mass and energy.
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> So
only 25% of kinetic energy instead of 50% will be spilled in order to
stop the moving meteorite. Newton was not aware of this.
His mv ^ 2 / 2 equation becomes gradually mv ^ 2 / 1 until it reaches
almost the speed of light. Then his equation transforms to E = mc ^ 2 :
</p>
<p align="center">E = m v<sup> 2</sup> / (1 + 1 /
<font face="Symbol" size="4">
g</font>)</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Energy
can be seen as kinetic or mass energy as well. There is no difference.
Kinetic energy is simply the additional m' mass.</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
Kinetic means speed, and it turns out that Einstein's equation also
shows that <b><i>something</i></b> inside matter always moves at the
speed of light. This "something" must be waves. This equation shows that
there is only one basic speed. The speed of light "c".</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This
new approach will lead us to a new set of equations for the Lorentz
transformations, using wavelength instead of space, and wave phase
instead of time.</font>
</p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>Space, Motion and Speed.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
demonstration about Einstein's equation may look trivial. However, in my
judgment, it is of the utmost importance. We know very well that matter
behaves according to Einstein's equation. But the goal is to find out <b><i>why</i></b> matter behaves
like this.
</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Motion was never correctly
understood. Obviously
Galileo
was wrong. Minkowski's space-time concept is absurd. But Euclid's postulates and Descartes' aether and frame of reference system (at rest
inside aether) still are true.
One must now complete their space
system and add motion to it.</font></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Active and
reactive masses.</b></font></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Considering
Einstein's equation, a new Wave Theory postulate should be
that there is only one basic speed. The aether wave's speed. Clearly, there <b><i>must</i></b> be something
inside matter which is always moving at this speed. We know that a particle cannot
reach the speed of light. But the light can. This very strongly indicates a <b><i>wave
nature</i></b> for matter. If so, it should also have a <b><i>wave
structure</i></b>.</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Waves
need a medium. The Wave Theory postulates that aether exists.</font>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">It also postulates that matter is made of spherical standing waves. One
good reason for this is that such waves obey the Lorentz transformations.</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Another reason is that the mass increase can be demonstrated
using the Doppler effect. It works exactly the way a <b><i>subsonic boom</i></b>
does. Such a phenomenon can easily be predicted using the
Doppler effect formulas : 1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font> and 1
+<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>. Here is a diagram showing it
in a spectacular way: </font>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/wavetheory03.gif" width="576" height="281"></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>Action and
reaction.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Suppose a one kilogram
billiard ball at rest. While moving at
.866 c speed, the beta </font><font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
value is worth .866 and the
gamma
<font face="Symbol" size="4">g
</font>
factor is 2. This means that the ball will be increased to 2 kilograms.
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">A
standing wave system at rest is radiating half of its energy forward (active mass
a on the positive side) and the other half
backward (reactive
mass r on the negative side) on a given x axis.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">According to Lorentz, for such a high speed, one must
first consider that clocks will run two times slower.
The system frequency will also be two times lower, and because energy is
proportional to frequency, it will be two times less. Here, 2 is for
both halves, and gamma is for energy loss : </p>
<p align="center">
a = m / 2 <font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font>
r = m / 2
<font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Moreover
the Doppler effect is 1 / (1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>) forward and 1 / (1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">+ </span><font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>)
backward :</p>
<p align="center">
a = m / 2 <font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font> (1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>)
r = m / 2 <font face="Symbol" size="4">g</font> (1 +<font face="Symbol" size="4">
b</font>)</p>
<p align="center">
a = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>
.866)
r = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 + .866)</p>
<p align="center">Active mass a = 1.866 kg
Reactive mass r = .134 kg</p>
<p align="center">a + r = 2 kg</p>
<p align="center"><font face="Symbol" size="4">g
</font>
m = 2 kg
</p>
<p align="center"><font face="Symbol" size="4">g
</font>
m = a + r</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">So
the mass gain clearly involves the Doppler effect. Please note here that
Mr. <a href="http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/tetrode.html">Milo Wolff</a>
also found that the mass increases according to the Doppler effect,
which also causes de Broglie's wave.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
mass increase can be predicted using the Lorentz transformations. No
surprise there : the Lorentz transformations actually are the result of
the Doppler effect.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">But
it can also be predicted using the Doppler
effect and a new motion postulate founded on the
fact that
the time needed for any wave round trip between two points, hence its
cycle, will be two
times longer inside such a <b> <i> moving wave structure</i></b>.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Here
is how a moving electron behaves:</p>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<center>
<table border="4" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6">
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/electron.5.gif" width="335" height="272"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
</div>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The electron mass/energy
increases in accordance with the Doppler effect.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>A new law of action and reaction.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">From
a mechanical point of view, those active and reactive masses generate
active and reactive <b><i>forces</i></b>. They clearly indicate that
Newton's famous third law is wrong : </p>
<p align="center">" Any action has an equal and opposite reaction
".</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Because
of the mass increase, the inequality has been demonstrated for a long
time. Moreover,
the Doppler effect is sinusoidal : <font face="Symbol">l</font><font face="Times New Roman">'
= </font><font face="Symbol">l</font><font face="Times New Roman"> (1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
</font><font face="Symbol">b</font><font face="Times New Roman"> cos </font><font face="Symbol">j</font><font face="Times New Roman">)</font>, and oblique forces
also are. So any force should also follow this formula, using a
"phi" angle which is 0° forward and reaches 180° backward
: </p>
<p align="center">F' = F / (1 <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:FR;mso-fareast-language:
FR;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">– </span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font><font face="Times New Roman"> cos </font><font face="Symbol">j</font>) </p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> Nobody seems to have proposed the correct law. In my opinion
it should be worded like this :</p>
<p align="center">" Any action has a simultaneous and opposite reaction in
accordance with the Doppler effect ".</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </p>
<p align="left"><b>The shade effect and the radiation pressure.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
page on wave mechanics shows that
progressive waves must lose some of their energy while crossing
standing waves. Because of the lens effect, a significant quantity of
energy is transferred from aether waves to electrons. Then this energy
as spherical wavelets is radiated by electrons. Because this
amplification process weakens aether waves coming from any matter
object, the waves become stronger in the opposite
direction. This is the <b><i>shade effect.</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">On
the other hand, electrons radiate spherical wavelets containing exactly
the same quantity of energy. Any aether wave exerts a radiation
pressure. It can push all electrons inside matter. This pressure should
compensate for the shade effect, but a very small difference can explain
gravity.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">When
two electrons are put close together, their waves are melting together, and
this produces fields such as electrostatic or gluonic. Such a system
radiates most of its energy along the axis. The result is a repulsive
effect along the axis and an attractive effect in any other direction.
The effect will be inverted using an electron and a positron. Let us
make it clear :</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">An
attraction effect occurs when the shade effect is stronger then the
radiation pressure.</li>
<li>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">A
repulsion effect occurs when the radiation pressure is stronger
then the shade effect.</li>
</ul>
<p align="left"><b>Gluonic fields.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Electrons
are very close together inside a quark and a proton. Inside such systems, waves from
each electron and positron are strongly adding themselves. This produces
"gluons" or gluonic fields. They are plane cylindrical standing
wave
systems which are also amplified by aether waves making their energy
much more intense than that of one electron alone.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">It
is a well known fact that collisions between positrons and electrons
produce quarks. There is no evidence that they actually annihilate.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">So
electrons and positrons could be indestructible. In such a case, energy
released by radioactive elements or by hydrogen fusion could originate
only from gluonic fields.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Matter at rest contains energy, but it is not
likely to be useable. </p>
<p align="left"><b>Huygens' principle.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Any
wave theory should first acknowledge that wave phenomena are composite and
behave in accordance with Huygens' principle. That is, they can be
predicted using thousands of "wavelets" adding or substracting
themselves. Huygens only spoke about wavelets originating from a wave
front. This principle supposes that the number of such wavelets is
infinite.</font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">However,
Augustin Fresnel noticed that many sources would also produce similar
effects even while they are not on a wave front. For example, one can
show that thousands of spherical sources on a flat laser window will
produce a light beam and also an Airy disk at a certain distance. But
the diffraction pattern would be quite different (here L is for distance
and D for diameter) for distances less than : </p>
<p align="center">L = D<sup> 2</sup> / 2.44 <font face="Symbol" size="4">l</font></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Those
wavelets are sinusoidal in nature, and so sine and cosine functions must
be used. As far as we know, the Huygens' principle has always proved to be
true. So any other equation which does not predict the same result is
simply wrong. In other words, one should play safe and <b><i>always</i></b>
use Huygens' principle. Many animations and diagrams showed on this web
site were computed this way. For example examine this astonishing
animated <a href="optique/images/airy00.gif">Airy
disk longitudinal view</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Computers
today can process thousands of wavelets in a fraction of a second. Huygens
and Fresnel could not.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Moreover,
computers reveal that spherical wavelets emitted by electrons can
explain gravity because their number is not infinite. There is a
distance between each of them, and waves are curved, not flat. Differential calculus can show what would happen with an infinite
number, but the computer shows that the result is slightly different
using more or less wavelets. It can also reveal the general trend
towards infinity.</p>
<p align="left"><b>Huygens principle explains gravity.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">There
are billions of electrons but their number still is not infinite.
Because matter mechanics involves huge quantities of energy, this slight
difference can explain <a href="sa_gravity.htm">gravity</a>. Indeed, gravity
is a very weak force, almost unperceivable between rather small objects.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
means that gravity is definitely not the "fundamental force of the
Universe". It does not involve specific waves or particles. There
is no need to call upon a whole "General Relativity theory"
for that, albeit tremendous pressures inside massive stars can certainly
cause space and time effects.</p>
<p align="left"><b>Motion is the result of composite wave displacements.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Any
displacement always occurs at the speed
of light, and the result is <b><i>motion</i></b>.
Motion is essentially <b><i>composite</i></b> in
nature. It cannot be faster then
the speed of light. It must be a series of back and forth waves round trips or a sequence of sideways zigzag
displacements always taking place at the speed
of light
"c".</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The following argument has been developed hundreds of
times since Lorentz. However, it must be repeated here because Albert Einstein's
theory still prevails today.</p>
<p align="left"><b>Planes flying through the wind.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Showing
a moving wave on this page appears to be quite a difficult enterprise.
Fortunately, waves can be represented by planes flying through the wind, in a much
more intuitive manner.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Suppose that the planes constant speed is 100 miles per hour and that the
wind is blowing at 50 mph. This means
<font face="Symbol" size="4"> b
</font>
= .5 and the
<font face="Symbol" size="4"> q
</font>
angle (arc sin
<font face="Symbol" size="4"> b
</font>
= 30°) will be very noticeable when they are flying across the wind for an observer on the ground.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">However,
as seen from a Montgolfier Balloon, whose speed is the same as that of the wind, the scene would be quite different. There will be no
angle any more, and the planes speed will still be 100 mph. This is the
"absolute" point of view.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
following diagram shows that when there is no wind at all (or no aether
wind) any round
trip between A and B or between A and C (while AB = AC) is the shortest and the fastest.
A race between two such planes will give a null result. <a href="sa_Michelson.htm"> Michelson's
interferometer</a> works exactly this way. It is a wave race instead of a
plane race :</p>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><img border="0" src="images/motion00.gif" width="240" height="243"></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> No wind.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>The wind is blowing sideways.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="text-indent: 35.4pt" align="left">However,
this is no longer true at high speed (high <b><i>motion</i></b>
would be the correct word). Let's repeat that here we suppose a beta
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>
= .5 c motion. The theta <font face="Symbol" size="4">q</font>
angle is worth : arc sin .5 or 30°. The ABA round
trip on a transverse axis becomes a zigzag AB'A' displacement. The
absolute length of such a displacement is worth 1 / cos 30° or 1.1547
times the ABA original one :</p>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/motion01.gif" width="362" height="219"></p>
<p align="center">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
As seen from a Montgolfier Balloon, the planes are
not tilted.</font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p class="MsoTitle" style="text-indent: 35.4pt" align="left">Note that
when they are seen from the ground, the planes must be tilted according
the </font>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">
q</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> = 30° angle. They <b><i>seem</i></b>
to maintain their original AB round trip. But actually their trip as
compared to air is AB'A' and the additional distance (1 / cos </font><font face="Symbol" size="4"> q</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
= 1.1547 instead of
1) makes it so that the time needed to perform the round trip
is also 1.1547 times the original time.</font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p align="left"><b>The round trip along the wind axis.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
round trip distance along the displacement axis is even more complex because the
motion direction must be
inverted for a shorter time and distance. Such a motion follows
the Doppler effect forward and backward :</p>
<p align="center">Distance and time forward : 1 / (1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>) = 2
Speed : 1 <span lang="FR-CA" style="font-family: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: Times New Roman; mso-ansi-language: FR-CA; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">–</span>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font> = .5</p>
<p align="center">Distance and time backward : 1 / (1 + <font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font>)
= 2 / 3 Speed : 1 + <font face="Symbol" size="4">b</font> =
1.5</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
means that while the plane is flying forward the actual distance AC' will
be doubled. While returning, the actual distance will be reduced to 2 /
3.</p>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="center"><img border="0" src="images/motion02.gif" width="423" height="146"></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Along the wind
axis.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></p>
<div align="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1000">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
absolute AC'A' round trip distance on the wind axis will be (2 + 2/3) /
2 = 1.3333 while it
was 1.1547 across the wind. It turns out that a longitudinal
round trip
is <b><i> longer</i></b>
than the equivalent transverse one. This
is consistent with Albert A. Michelson's calculations for his
interferometer:</p>
<p align="center">Transverse distance and time : 1 / cos <font face="Symbol" size="4">q</font>
= 1.1547</p>
<p align="center">Longitudinal distance and time : 1 / (cos <font face="Symbol" size="4">q</font>)<sup>
2</sup>
= 1.3333</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">This
is also consistent with Lorentz's equations. One must remember that
Lorentz was trying to find out <b><i> why</i></b> this interferometer did not reveal
the aether wind. Lorentz explained that it encountered a length
contraction, whose value was : cos
</font>
<font face="Symbol" size="4">
q</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> = .866. The x
distance would be reduced to 1.3333 * .866 = 1.1547, making the absolute
round trip distance exactly the same on all axes.
</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Lorentz
believed that matter really contracts at high speed. Nobody believed him
because he could not explain why. However, we know today that matter
involves waves. We also know that standing waves do transform in accordance with Lorentz's equations.</font>
</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Now
we know why matter should behave like it does.</font>
</p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Clocks will
slow down.</b></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> <p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">So
any clock should contract. No problem there : <u>
standing waves do contract this way</u>, and the clocks are made of standing
waves. Then their pendulum absolute round trip distance
would be the same on all x, y and z axes, but the time needed to
perform a two-way cycle would still be 1.1547 longer on all axes. </p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Planes are
only a comparison. Waves would behave like this too. Clearly, any periodic phenomenon or wave frequency will slow down. Matter as waves
must evolve slower at high speed.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">From
a mechanical point of view, a pendulum must slow down
while accelerating, because the absolute distance is increased. Galileo's
transformation was wrong because it did not predict such a time effect. It did not predict a
contraction either. On the contrary a Cartesian frame of reference still
works, but it <b><i>must</i></b> be at rest inside aether.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">The
matter wave properties are well acknowledged today. The Lorentz
transformations should appear merely obvious, as Euclid's geometry is. No tricky reasoning. No breathtaking equations. Pure mechanics. Pure logic.</p>
<p align="left"><b>Lorentz and the radar.</b></p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Radar
pulses behave exactly in the same way as planes. Their absolute speed
through aether is constant, but their relative speed is no longer the same
for any moving observer.</p>
<p class="MsoTitle" style="TEXT-INDENT: 35.4pt; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Here,
we suppose 86.6% of the light speed. Then the Lorentz contraction is worth
50% according to the gamma factor (1 / </font>