Let's face it: we are unable to explain clearly most phenomena such as light, gravity, atomic forces or magnetic fields. We 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 clearly 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 empty space.

One simply cannot check whether magnetic fields really can move through empty space or not because a material device such as an antenna 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 discover 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 not electromagnetic, they are rather made of aether waves capable of producing electric and magnetic fields when they attain 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". So it is still 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 an hypothesis.

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, the 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, the Michelson interferometer yields a null result because it contracts. Or Bradley's aberration is perfectly symmetric, etc. 

But this does not mean that the aether does not exist.

On the contrary, Lorentz was firmly convinced that it 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 were established in accordance with the postulate that the aether does exist.

The point is: all happens as if aether exists.

So, today's common assumption that Michelson's experience ruled out the aether and that this hypothesis has been "abandoned" is definitely wrong. Nobody ever demonstrated that the 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 would need an aether. Matter particles also clearly exhibit wave properties. This strongly suggests that matter waves and the required medium should exist.

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 totally false. Many scientists deduced from this that the aether does not exist.

Actually, there was a serious omission: the light frequency slows down. According to Lorenz, the apparatus (not space) should contract; additionally, 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. It also remains 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. The Michelson interferometer needs only one arm, not two. On condition that the Lorentz transformations are true, the second arm length makes no difference.

Descartes discovered that the light is made up of waves traveling thanks to 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 the 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. The light is emitted on a secondary frequency.

Then Einstein studied the photoelectric effect and he supposed that the 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. Why should this constant amount of energy be imperatively attributed to light instead of electrons? After all, 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 made of waves.

And finally, Compton never explained how "his" photons were working. He failed to explain the true nature of electric and magnetic fields. He failed to explain the electron mechanism. All students in the world should read how he interpreted his results despite his total ignorance. They would realize that there is still a long way towards the truth.

Nobody can transform so many uncertainties into certitude.

The Sun's gravity cannot deviate light because it is made of waves. However, space around the sun is filled up 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 the 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 because of the solar wind. The same phenomenon should also occur around galaxies, which are surrounded with gas clouds, 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 speed of light or produce a deviation. The point is that the solar wind particles are faster when their density is higher. This may partially cancel the deviation difference, but not exactly. So the deviation is certainly not constant, and the difference will become perceptible using more precise instruments.

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

In addition, the blue light deviates more drastically than red 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 the deviation for red and blue 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 Eddington'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, and they are unlikely to 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 the surface of 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 such as in a black hole.

Most people think 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 still 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, we definitely cannot succeed while most physical phenomena are still totally unexplained. The first question we 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 "time wall". No matter could exist beyond this wall because it cannot reach the speed of light. In such a case, the Hubble 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. Because the light is actually an exception, it would be simpler to postulate that all waves go freely through matter. Then, in order to explain why the light seems to be stopped, deviated or reflected, one can prove that electrons react to light and emit some new light whose phase is opposite.

Firstly, because of the opposite phase, 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 whose phase is opposite.

Today, we can also use Mr. Delmotte's Virtual aether, which is a true laboratory for studying waves. 

Here are the results below. The upper opaque screen simply stops the waves, and a shade appears. The lower one rather emits new waves whose 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 whose 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, it 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' coordinates 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.

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

In brief, 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, most people very rapidly reject my discovery that the light is made of composite waves traveling through aether. This happens because of three superimposed errors. Firstly, they think that the 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 the 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.