Lorentz was right.

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.

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. 

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.

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, plus 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.

The speed of light.

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.

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.

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, nobody 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.

But Lorentz was still sure about the aether. Fortunately, many people rediscover today this "new" Lorentzian Relativity.

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.

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:

Energy.

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".

More energy inside matter means new mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation :

E = mc ² 

It must be pointed out that Newton's equation (v is for velocity) for kinetic energy is :

E = mv ² / 2

However, this equation only shows effective 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 deceleration obviously needs as much energy as is needed for accelerating the other ball. So the total energy involved during the process is given by:

E = mv ²

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 :

g  = 1 / (1 – b ² ) ^{1 / 2}     with  b = v / c

E = m'c ²

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 :

g = 1 / (1 – b ² ) ^{1 / 2}  = 1.00005

E = m'c ²

E = .00005 * 9 * 10 ¹⁶ joules

E = 4.5 * 10 ¹² joules.

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 :

E = mv ² / 2

E = 1 * 9 * 10 ¹² / 2

E = 4.5 * 10 ¹² joules.

 This is consistent with Einstein's equation, at least while the mass increase is not significant. Otherwise the mc squared equation should prevail.

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.

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 :

E = m v ² / (1 + 1 / g)

Space, Motion and Speed.

Action and reaction.

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.

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 : 

a = m / 2 g               r = m / 2 g

Moreover the Doppler effect is 1 / (1 – b) forward and 1 / (1 + b) backward :

a = m / 2 g (1 – b)               r = m / 2 g (1 + b)

a = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 – .866)               r = 1 / 2 * 2 (1 + .866)

Active mass  a = 1.866 kg               Reactive mass  r = .134 kg

a + r = 2 kg

g m = 2 kg

g m = a + r

So the mass gain clearly involves the Doppler effect. Please note here that Mr. Milo Wolff also found that the mass increases according to the Doppler effect, which also causes de Broglie's wave.

This mass increase can be predicted using the Lorentz transformations. No surprise there : the Lorentz transformations actually are the result of the Doppler effect.

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 moving wave structure.

Here is how a moving electron behaves:

A new law of action and reaction.

From a mechanical point of view, those active and reactive masses generate active and reactive forces. They clearly indicate that Newton's famous third law is wrong : 

" Any action has an equal and opposite reaction ".

Because of the mass increase, the inequality has been demonstrated for a long time. Moreover, the Doppler effect is sinusoidal : l' = l (1 – b cos j), 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 : 

F' = F / (1 – b cos j) 

Nobody seems to have proposed the correct law. In my opinion it should be worded like this :

" Any action has a simultaneous and opposite reaction in accordance with the Doppler effect ".

The shade effect and the radiation pressure.

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 shade effect.

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.

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 :

• An attraction effect occurs when the shade effect is stronger then the radiation pressure.

• A repulsion effect occurs when the radiation pressure is stronger then the shade effect.

Gluonic fields.

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.

It is a well known fact that collisions between positrons and electrons produce quarks. There is no evidence that they actually annihilate.

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.

Matter at rest contains energy, but it is not likely to be useable.  

Huygens' principle.

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 : 

L = D ² / 2.44 l

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 always use Huygens' principle. Many animations and diagrams showed on this web site were computed this way. For example examine this astonishing animated Airy disk longitudinal view.

Computers today can process thousands of wavelets in a fraction of a second. Huygens and Fresnel could not.

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.

Huygens principle explains gravity.

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 gravity. Indeed, gravity is a very weak force, almost unperceivable between rather small objects.

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.

Motion is the result of composite wave displacements.

Any displacement always occurs at the speed of light, and the result is motion. Motion is essentially composite 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".

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.

Planes flying through the wind.

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.

Suppose that the planes constant speed is 100 miles per hour and that the wind is blowing at 50 mph. This means b = .5 and the q angle (arc sin b = 30°) will be very noticeable when they are flying across the wind for an observer on the ground.

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.

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. Michelson's interferometer works exactly this way. It is a wave race instead of a plane race :

The wind is blowing sideways.

However, this is no longer true at high speed (high motion would be the correct word). Let's repeat that here we suppose a beta  b = .5 c motion. The theta  q  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 :

The round trip along the wind axis.

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 :

Distance and time forward :  1 / (1 – b) = 2       Speed : 1 – b = .5

Distance and time backward :  1 / (1 + b) = 2 / 3       Speed : 1 + b = 1.5

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.

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 longer than the equivalent transverse one. This is consistent with Albert A. Michelson's calculations for his interferometer:

Transverse distance and time : 1 / cos q = 1.1547

Longitudinal distance and time : 1 / (cos q) ² = 1.3333

So any clock should contract. No problem there : standing waves do contract this way, 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. 

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.

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 must be at rest inside aether.

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.

Lorentz and the radar.

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.

1. The 5 observers will be unable to detect the contraction.

2. The time shift will cancel the signal delay forward and backward.

3. Their clocks will run slower while the signal speed will also travel two times slower.