Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Antonis Agathangelidis
local time: 2021-09-24 10:26 (+02:00 )
Antonis Agathangelidis (Abstracts)
Titles Abstracts Details
  • Light as Dynamic Maxwellian Photons: Interference in Terms of Trajectories (2010) [Updated 4 years ago]

    Since Maxwell's electromagnetic wave carries energy and momentum, it can be the constituent of the photon. Here the photon is not conceived as a point-like energy packet governed by an external Maxwellian field, but the opposite; axiom a): The photon is assumed to be a linearly-polarized and transversely-vibrating sinusoidal micro E/M disturbance of one period duration propagating in ether. We call this photon model ?polarized Maxwellian photon? (PMP). The total length of the propagating PMP is lPH = cT = (lambda). The propagation of this photon is in the ether (i.e. Maxwell?s vibrating medium, classical ether, vibrating potential vacuum, vibrating quantum substratum, etc.]. In order to explain the behavior of the PMP, we admit and the following axiom (b): The emitted photon (PMP), from the atom, vibrates always coherently to its nearby vibrating ether. Axioms (a) and (b) are not independent of each other and both lead us to deduce that: (i) The PMP?s can interact mutually only with those similar PMP?s which are propagating along crossing Newtonian-like paths forming very small angles between them (no matter if the photons are moving together, or in opposite directions), (ii) The PMP?s explain the boson-behavior of photons, (iii) The PMP's are interacting mutually in such a way -ii-, as to create the illusionary interpretation ?as if the light consists of waves of wavelength (lambda)?  [where the PMP?s always follow classical (Newtonian-like) trajectories, while all the up-today Wave-Optics phenomena are easily explained]; and (iv): the phase-distribution of the interacting photons, creates their own ?External ? Macroscopic - Maxwellian-E/M-Field?Resultant - Strength?, giving us the impression that they are really governed by that field.


  • Verification of Stokes? 1845 Terrestrial Ether by Re-Interpretation of Experiments (2010) [Updated 4 years ago]

    The re-interpretations of Riis-Lee-Hall (et al) and of Brillet-Hall tests, together with the re-interpretation of Hafele-Keating, Michelson-Morley, and Michelson-Gale experiments, complete the image of the ?terrestrial ?Stokes? (1845)- ether? (TSE), which is gravitationally-bound to Earth and carried by it translationally in space (but participating only very slightly in Earth?s rotation around its axis). The presence of the TSE close around the globe acts as a kind of shelter, creating on Earth a perfect lack of ?cosmic-velocity? ether-drifts; thus, the high-velocity motions of the Earth around the Sun, around the center of the galaxy, etc., cannot produce any effect on the ?velocity of light? or on the ?time-rates of atomic clocks?. Only low-velocity-ether-drifts, due to the motions relative to TSE Earth?s rotation, are present on Earth, or on flying aircraft, or on orbiting Labs around the Earth. As Earth rotates eastwards, around its axis, the moving clocks of the Hafele-Keating experiment do feel their motions through the TSE generating changes in their time-rates, just as the Michelson-Gale interferometer had detected changes in the velocity of light ?to the East and West- due to Earth?s rotation relative to TSE. Similarly, due to Earth?s rotation about its axis, the Brillet-Hall arrangement detects accurately the ether-drift of our Lab relative to the terrestrial ether.


  • Implications of Hafele-Keating, Michelsom-Morley, & Michelson-Gale Experiments (2001) [Updated 1 decade ago]

    There were two serious flaws in Hafele's "general-relativistic" calculations:

    1. He calculated the "proper times" d, of his own atomic clocks, by means of the special relativistic equation dt = ds/c, as if the gravitational potential ?' of the space inside the flying airplanes or on the ground, was zero ( ? = 0 ).
    2. He did not complete his theoretical calculations for the heliocentric non-rotating frame.

    Such a calculation leads to conclusions that are devastating for GRT. On the other hand, the Hafele-Keating (H-K) experimental result shows surprising similarities to both the Michelson-Morley (M-M) and the Michelson-Gale (M-G) classical optical results. These analogies are fatal for present-day SRT & GRT. We have to accept Stokes?s model of ether (1845), or otherwise "Earth's Ether Atmosphere" (EEA).


  • Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity (1998) [Updated 4 years ago]

    According to Einstein, Special Relativity Theory (SRT) is valid for inertial reference frames in constant relative translation. But such a condition is never fulfilled in nature, where curved paths and accelerations are everywhere present. This situation implies questions that are devastating for SRT; any answer at all is fatal to SRT and to the Lorentz transformations (LT?s) it implies. Furthermore, comparative analysis of classical optical experiments and other ?relativistic? phenomena reveals arbitrariness and confusion about the experimental validation of SRT. Actually, what has been experimentally established is an unclear amalgam of SRT and general relativity theory (GRT). The foundations of both theories are thus brought into question.