Ioannis

Hi swansont! Why did you close my thread? You could not afford the truth? There is nothing on my thread that could be called crackpot. Then again why there is this sector of Speculations on this forum? What do you think you are doing? I invite everyone on this forum to visit the closed thread below and to express openly his opinion: [link removed] swansont, you took the chance to close my thread because I mentioned the words "if you fail to understand the above then please close my thread". I did it just to challenge you because I know that I am right about those I mentioned. Since you did not have any arguments against my thread, you liked (your usually tactic as also to every moderator) to remove it because it was annoying in your head (unacceptable because it is true and challenges today's understanding in Physics). I am very, very sorry about you! Web Site: [link removed] Ioannis P.S. Whatever is your relation with Physics or whatever degree of Physics you may have, they are useless in front of common sense! Here you are correct! I did the same on my thread, meaning I observe something that it was overlooked since years. It is a theoretical prediction (without to violate existing laws of physics or formulations). Conclusively, it is better none to present new ideas on this forum since people like swansont will never let them grow because of his own interests. Damn, very scientific behavior! Want it or not, the truth is there and it will not be stopped from such arrogant forums and moderators. Ioannis

Hi ajb! I think you did not understand my arguments. I will respond to you a little bit later this evening. Regards Ioannis

Is it a crackpot the grouping of parameters by giving them a name and especially when these parameters are constants? OK, about the name "aether's tangential velocity", you can say whatever you like. I named it like this because I had a very special reason that I will reveal it a little bit later, if you have the courage to not close my thread. And about h=h, what is the problem there? h=h, proves that the equation is not violated. Now to prove you my claim about the validity of the new expression, please read below: [latex]h f_{ce}=h\frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}=m_ec^2\Rightarrow h=\frac{m_ec^2}{f_{ce}}[/latex] eq.(1) [latex]and[/latex] [latex]h=r_e \frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}[/latex] eq.(2) Fine Structure Constant [latex]\alpha= \frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow h=\frac{2\pi KQ_e^2}{\alpha c}[/latex] and Electron Classical Radius [latex]r_e= \frac{KQ_e^2}{m_ec^2}[/latex] Comment: I mention the Fine Structure Constant and the Electron Classical Radius to remind you that there is no crackpot anywhere. Just a grouping of constants and naming took place. Conclusively from eq.(1) and eq.(2): [latex]f_{ce}=\frac{V_A}{r_e}[/latex] eq.(3) I do not see any kind of crackpot on the above since the value of Planck constant remains the same. The above is something very obvious but it was overlooked the last 70 years at least (from the discovery of the fine structure constant). Please think very carefully (without prejudices) and use your cold logic and knowledge in Physics about the below statement and question: From the moment there is not any single violation on the above equations, eq. (3) reveals us that the frequency (corresponding to Compton's Wavelength) is related with a velocity [latex]V_A[/latex] and the geometrical radius [latex]r_e[/latex] of the Electron. It is known that the frequency of a photon (with Energy equals to the rest Energy of the Electron) is related by: [latex]f_{ce}= \frac{c}{\lambda_{ce}}[/latex] eq.(4) In eq.(4) the frequency equals the ratio between the propagation velocity of the E/M waves in vacuum and the wavelength of the propagating E/M wave (photon). The keywords to define the frequency of a wave, are: The propagation velocity (light speed) and the wavelength which point to an oscillation process. The propagation velocity is just a translational velocity which has nothing to do with oscillation. The wavelength reveals that we speak about an oscillation. Question: Eq.(3) tell us that the same frequency as calculated by eq.(4), is equal to the ration between of an unknown velocity "identity" ([latex]V_A[/latex]) and the classical electron radius. Since the classical electron radius is not directly related to a wavelength (which is actually an E/M Radius) and it is strictly a geometrical radius, then is the ([latex]V_A[/latex]) related to a propagation velocity? The answer is definitely NO! Why? Because the definition of frequency must be depended by a parameter that is related to an oscillation. This means that ([latex]V_A[/latex]) is 100% a tangential velocity. The ultimate consequence is from the moment the Planck constant is related with the previous tangential velocity and since the Planck constant is a property of the vacuum, that reveals that the vacuum or better the entire Universe has a tangential velocity equals to 348.43Km/sec. This results to an absolute rotating frame (the Universe). If you fail to understand the above then please close my thread. I am here to share my discoveries and not to play with imaginative and pointless theories. Of course I do not know or understand everything (I never will because I am just a human) and definitely the above is not crackpot, just plain logic. Those who insist that is crackpot, they fear about the revealed truth. Regards Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ Ioannis Hi Kramer! If you are Physicist or even a person with interest in Physics and honest you may realize the above is not crackpot since there is not any violation of what we know. The value of the Planck constant remains intact. Crackpot are those who change the values of the constants (with re-normalization techniques) just to feet to their ideas. I did not do that. And about some semi-indications about this tangential velocity, go to my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ and on the web page I have a list with some old experiments where they were trying to measure our velocity in absolute space. The column with the velocities they measured (after a later re-processing of the data) they reveal indirectly what I mentioned above. If you my thread remains open, there are more surprises under way where at least will amaze you, not impress you but because they are undoubtedly true! Regards Ioannis

swansoft, Well, please give me some time (I have some other obligations today) and I will develop my argument about your answer, but I will post a little bit later in the evening. Kind Regards Ioannis

Hi Staff! Then why is it exist in the literature? Could you tell me what is the physical size of the Electron? Why the below info exists which relates the fine structure constant with the classical electron radius, as also why is it still used in Thomson scattering (in some cases)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius From the moment the previous formulations (electron classical radius, fine structure constant and thomson scattering) exist in the literature and they are not fictioned (not of my imagination), then the challenge remains open. Regards Ioannis

Good Evening everyone! I understand that the subject of this thread looks like to challenge accepted Science. Well, I would advise caution to those who would like to provoke this thread since what you are going to read below, it is actually mainstream Physics: Planck Constant [latex]h=r_e\frac{m_ec^2}{V_A}=6.626068\bullet10^{-34}Joule/Hz[/latex] [latex]V_A=\frac{KQ_e^2}{h}=\frac{\alpha c}{2\pi}=348.43Km/sec[/latex] Fine Structure Constant [latex]\alpha=\frac{2 \pi KQ_e^2}{hc}\Rightarrow\frac{\alpha}{2 \pi}=\frac{KQ_e^2}{hc}=\frac{V_A}{c}=\frac{A.Tang. Velocity}{Prop. Velocity©}[/latex] [latex]r_e:[/latex] Electron's classical radius [latex]m_e:[/latex] Electron's mass [latex]c:[/latex] Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum [latex]V_A:[/latex] Aether's Tangential Velocity (Universe Tangential Velocity) Comment: Do not be surprised from the above since it is mainstream Physics (I did not add anything). The mystery of the fine structure constant is finally solved. It is the ratio between the Tangential Velocity of the Charge (due to its self-rotation) to the Propagation Velocity of light in vacuum. Question(1): Is it possible the [latex]V_A[/latex] to be a propagation velocity or something else? (Please use the above information for your arguments or whatever else you like) Question(2): if [latex]V_A[/latex] is Tangential Velocity, what are the consequence on cosmology and on quantum world? About the development of charge and mass, will be revealed (you can do it by yourself too) after the solution of the above Questions. Anyone may participate on this challenge and especially the Phycisists of this forum (I will be very glad to hear their opinion!). For those who are interested about my research, they may watch a brief Theory Presentation on my web site. Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/ Kind Regards Ioannis Xydous Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi John! I am glad to hear you. Yes you are probably right about your assumptions and I understand what you mean more or less (it is a long time that I was involved with Nyquist theory). Anyway, now the sampling frequency with the measured signal if it is not appropriate filtered or the sampling frequency is not the right one (when there are signals with above the half frequency of the sampling rate) it will have by products from the mixing of frequencies. I have done this experiment some weeks ago and you can see this oscillation on the first 200 seconds when you measure the ambient field (no magnets). I would like to make another experiment with other sensors too, just to compare but at the moment I do not have much time since I must find a new job (I will be jobless from 1st of July since the company closes permanently). About the power lines the ADC-24 Data Logger (24-Bit resolution) has an option to suppress the 50Hz noise (in Analog input) which is always selected. The ADC-24 has a very low sampling speed around 10 Hz due to high resolution and product requirements. The sensor has a bandwidth of 20KHz and the analog output of the GM08 is unfiltered. The A/D conversion was selected on 666msec and the sampling rate to 1 sample/sec for the ADC-24 Data Logger. OK, let us make the following assumption for the moment: We suppose that we do not trust my measurements because it was not taken the necessary precautions. On the Exp#1 I used very reliable data from USGS National Geomagnetism Monitoring Program (link is provided on my web site). These data were Earth's surface Magnetic Field measurements from the Honolulu station. I suppose that they have a more accurate equipment there. After the theoretical analysis and after the analysis of the data (downloaded by the USGS), I discovered (I believe) that inside Earth's Magnetic Field (on the surface) there are permanent two oscillations 8.6mHz and 17.3mHz superimposed on the main oscillation of Earth's Magnetic Field. As I write on my paper, someone must search relative flat regions to uncover these signals otherwise the long period oscillation dominates and these frequencies have very small almost undetectable amplitude. Now the question is: I found these frequencies during the running of the experiment with the Nd Magnet. Is this accidental? Now if you go to my web site: www.ioannisxydous.gr and you click on the link for the experiments, you are able to download all the excel files from USGS as also that I recorded. If I am wrong then I need someone to show me, where I am wrong. It would be greatly appreciated your help on this matter. If you could apply an FFT (if you know how in Excel) on my data, I would like to have a copy if you do not mind. I am open to discuss everything about the experiments as also about the theory. Your feedback about the experiments will be greatly appreciated! (They are simple experiments and Exp#1 does not need to make a measurement or a setup. You could download data from USGS and to make your own analysis) Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Dear All, I just updated my web site. There you will find a link (Aether's Detection Experiments) about the strongest indications (or evidences) about the Aether's existence, which is proved theoretically as also experimentally. Best Wishes Ioannis Xydous

For those interested on Aether, below there is an interesting experiment: Aether Experiment Regards Ioannis Xydous

Thanks michel123456 for your support, but when someone has an alternative solution on the most pressing issues in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and additionally has almost all the most important equations on-line (Web Site) then it does not need to convince anyone. Those who try to convince are the politicians. I am not a politician. I brought my work on public and I am open to discuss it with those who have spend some time to read it. Otherwise by trying to develop arguments to those who has not even visit my web site, I find it useless. As Thales said "The wisest of all is the TIME, because it discovers everything!" 600 B.C. Meaning in today's words, "Only time will tell". I do not have anything else to say. I registered to many Forums with just to have the luck (like lottery) to find some open minded probable Scientists or free researchers where they would like to discuss of what I have to offer. I think this forum is one of the many, I visited. Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody) P.S. The reason I filled the entire Web Site with equations is that first they are very important (give an alternative solution) and secondly to trigger people's interest (mostly those who are intuitive and not those who are expecting every word on my paper to be presented like that of the most famous peer reviewed paper). michel123456, I am very self-confident of what I discovered, but in our case does not help. The forum must make the first steps. What I had to say, I said it as also all you need to know is found on my work. For one more time, the politicians are trying to convince. Science does not need politicians. It needs mathematical proofs and experiments. Some of them are found on my paper as also indications exist also on the Internet. There are many subjects that could someone discuss on my work. From Aether to Casimir, Nuclear Force, Complete Coulomb Force, Neutrinos, Cosmology and much more. The people must not be caught on the word "Aether" since today's Science denies it (I proposed three experiments where on one of them is given the results by me, who analyzed Earth's Magnetic Field Data). The Aether's Velocity is not added to equations it was always there in the fine structure constant. All equation presented can have removed the Velocity of Aether and instead of it to have the fine structure constant in formulations (then would not be so irritating for some people. This means those people lack of scientific intuition. This is not arrogant but a fact.). Regards Ioannis

I thought that I have to write something more, but I already have written. John and other you already won! Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody)

Ok, John! I will not try to convince everyone! I am just looking of some feedback about what is written on my work. Again I am not a physicist. If you call the Vacuum as free space or Space-Time or Aether, what is your problem? Did those who mentioned in the past knew what is all about? One more post will come in a few minutes and then I will disappear. I am not interested in close minded (not intuitive) conversations which bring only negative aspects and resistance to think alternatively. Did you download my work or visited my web site? If not, then it does not make sense to discuss anything with you. Farewell! Ioannis (Just Nobody)

Hi michel123456! Thank you for the warnings and your kind words! Well I am looking for a real feedback negative or positive. I have some indications of where I stand, but this is not enough. If they will not be interested on my work, it is simply their problem. I am planning just a couple or just one more post on this forum. If nobody will be interested, I will let my thread to vanish into oblivion. I do not care and I am not interested to convince everyone. Those who have some elementary intuition, they will be interested to read (this is the reason I put the most important equations on my web site). The rest and the strong minded, they will try to be caught on some not good looking descriptions or comments or words, by loosing the entire "forest". Have a nice day! Ioannis Xydous Web Site: ioannisxydous.gr (Google it) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Hi John and everyone! I just would like to give the definition of what Electricity (due to charge) is from the words of Tesla himself: http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb16.html Tesla quotes: In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College, Tesla said in pertinent part (emphasis mine): "What is electricity, and what is magnetism? "…We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion". In his statements, Tesla was balancing the various arguments in preparation for his decision: "…Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule." Now check the below part of my work: This is one of the strongest indications that:a) The Tangential Velocity of the Aether cannot be zero and b) The charge is associated with the mass and the spinning Aether, exactly as Nikola Tesla stated. I will look forward for your comments! Ioannis Xydous Web Site: ioannisxydous.gr (Google it) Electronic Engineer Switzerland

Dear swansont and John, If you insist on this point then you won. I cannot present evidences about the null result since even these indications (not evidences) about some non zero results concluded by those who attempted to detect a probable existence of Aether, I am not able to research their method or theory. It needs much time to spend to understand the ideas in regards to the detection of Aether as also to experiment with those. If I would spend so much time to research what all of those people attempted in the past as also to provide a probable experimental similar setup, I would never develop my work. Indeed my work is based on much intuition, comparison and knowledge combinations as also and on what some people achieved or not by measuring this velocity of Aether. If it is a fact that the light speed is reduced in different directions or when a rotating Michelson interferometer shows some frequency shift on a laser beam, then there is a high probability that the Aether has a zero translational velocity and 348 Km/sec Tangential velocity. Note: Just think why all of these experiments need a rotating frame or change of direction in a light beam for something to be recorded. Does it have to do with the Aether (or space medium) rotation? (Stationary Aether but spinning) Again I have to say that I was inspired by Rhythmodynamics in regards to write and to search about the Aether as also I am not a Physicist. Nothing more and nothing else. The rest of my work is pure inspiration of myself. If the work is wrong then it is wrong. This is the reason that I would like to discuss it with open minded people of the Scientific community or free researchers. I found some links of interest about the non zero value of the Aether's Tangential velocity: http://www.helical-s...r-drift-exp.pdf Stefan Marinov Experiments http://www.helical-s...Mes_abs_vel.pdf In my paper, I have a much simpler Experiment (#1) which does not need a set up (or even laser beams or artificial rotating frames). The rotating frame is the earth itself and instead of laser beams I use the Magnetic Field lines of Earth. But the Experiment #3 which uses a Nd Magnet with a co-rotating detection coil (simulating the Exp.#1 on the Laboratory), could be the ultimate proof of Aether's existence. Maybe some day soon, I will try it. It could be easily modified without to use a rotating platform but just some partial rotation of some rads. Note: Those experimenters of the past who tried to detect the Aether, they did not have a theoretical result which shows a value about the Aether's velocity. They were searching blindly. Then how could you determine a fixed Aether velocity when the measurements have so much divergences and were taken in different time of the year? Their methodology probably cannot be the ultimate and completely reliable way to detect a probable stationary but spinning Aether. If you think by the moment I cannot explain the null results of other experiments of the past that my work does not worth to be read, then just do not read it. Ioannis Xydous (Go to Google and write my name. The web site will come first in the search list. Or check the link on my profile.) Electronic Engineer Switzerland