| 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 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 |



This is the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern generated by a moving linear emitter.

On the left hand side, the pattern is compressed only on the direction of motion (horizontal axis).

If the emitter is placed vertically, the pattern is still compressed horizontally according to Lorentz's predictions.


More recent experiences in favor of Lorentz's Relativity.

The above diagram is a flawless demonstration that Lorentz's contraction really occurs for optical phenomena. In spite of the Doppler effect, the Fresnel-Fraunhofer diffraction pattern proves to remain perfectly symmetric in such a way that motion cannot be detected. Those results are possible thanks to Mr. Philippe Delmotte's and Jocelyn Marcotte's virtual medium, which is a powerful laboratory. The results are not disputable because they can also be reproduced using true physical devices and true waves such as the sound waves. They are much easier to obtain using the computer, though.

The important point is that today's computers are amazingly fast and reliable. Especially, it becomes clear that Lorentz's Relativity, which is based on the existence of a preferred frame of reference (the aether) and on actual matter contraction, will replace Einstein's because it also explains matter mechanics. This will lead us well beyond a mere Relativity effect.

The more our skill is improving, the more we are capable of making experiences.

In addition, Lorentz's Relativity strongly suggests that matter is made of waves. The Wave Nature of Matter is on its way to be demonstrated.

The Michelson Interferometer.

More recently, we worked hard to obtain the best results from this virtual medium. A lot of annoying artifacts and anomalies were corrected. Now, our images are quite smooth and natural. 

Below are several new improved video clips showing how light travels in the Michelson Interferometer. There is a choice of two velocities. Firstly, half of the speed of light or 0.5 c, and secondly, 0.7 c. Transverse waves are tilted to an angle which is given by: arc sin (v/c), that is 30° and 45°. This behavior proves to be highly consistent with the Lorentz Transformations. The interferometer contraction leads to a modified angle for the beam splitter, whose normal angle is 45° when the apparatus is stationary. Surprisingly, the new angle works fine and apparently, all seems to happen as though the interferometer was still at rest. Judge by yourself.



Spherical outgoing waves are reflected on a parabola in order to obtain transverse plane waves. They are tilted to a theta = arc sin (v/c) angle. Thus, they are traveling slightly frontward in such a way that the interferometer constantly follows them. Then the beam splitter produces two separate and orthogonal beams which are reflected back by the plane mirrors. The mirror on the right is nearer to the beam splitter than the upper one because of the contraction, and the beam reunification indicates that Lorentz's hypothesis (Larmor and FitzGerald also proposed it) was correct.

These images are also showing a very interesting optical effect: the beams are finally reunified by the beam splitter. Almost no light returns to the emitter. This occurs because the beam splitter does not really "reflect" the light beam. Matter on the transparent layer emits wavelets instead, whose phase is opposite. These wavelets cancel one half of the wave energy passing through it but their addition on a 90° angle produces a new wave front whose phase is lambda/4 shifted. This phenomenon is a confirmation that the light waves cannot be stopped by matter. Surprisingly, the shade behind matter is caused by wavelets whose phase is opposite. This is not really a surprise because radio waves, X-rays and gamma rays are not stopped by matter. Let's face it, most of the spectrum obeys this rule and the light is the exception. In addition, a metallic screen or wire (especially a parasite antenna) are well known to capture some of the energy and then emit such wavelets whose phase is opposite. According to their number and their distribution, they also produce a shade exhibiting a characteristic diffraction pattern. However, in this case, the beam splitter very thin reflecting layer is insufficient to cancel the whole energy passing through it.

Naturally, one should compare with what is going on when the interferometer is really at rest.


It is even more important to compare with what happens if the set does not undergo Lorentz's contraction. The video below shows that Michelson's calculus was correct - except for the contraction, which was quite unpredictable. This proves that Lorentz's idea was just great!


The codec is Mpeg-4 DivX 7 - DivX Plus (well established H-264/AAC) using Matroska files with .mkv extension. Matryoshka means "Russian dolls", as this system allows one to include a menu and many chapters, audio and subtitle choices, which could be useful here. Those files are significantly smaller for a given quality. I hope that the whole Internet will finally focus on them to get rid of all this mess about compatibility. Most of new DVD et Blu-ray players should easily play them, as well as Windows Media Player, Zoom Player, VLC Media Player, DivX Player, etc. If you still experience some difficulties, you may download (free, Zoom Player included) the whole nine yards from CCCP, which means Combined Community Codec Pack, not USSR!

I wrote and used the FreeBasic program below to produce the diagrams:


Decisive results.

By comparison, Special Relativity now appears frankly unreasonable. Those results are actually devastating for supporters of Einstein's Special Relativity. They were comfortably installed in their unexplainable certitude but those new facts (and more to come) are definitely waiting for new explanations.

Up to now, nobody seems to have clearly described this remarkable behavior. The good idea should be to reasonably explain the resulting appearance of Relativity without Einstein's absurdities. As a matter of fact, Lorentzian Relativity is still to be elaborated. Lorentz was definitely on the right track but he never went beyond a mere explanation of Bradley's and Michelson's unexpected results and, perhaps, a better description of the transformed particles. What's worse, Henri Poincaré and Einstein ruled out matter contraction and (almost) the aether itself. Fortunately, they were all quite sure that faster then light speeds were impossible. This is not what some supporters of Lorentz's Relativity wrongfully think.

Bradley's aberration of light.

I also tested successfully the Bradley aberration of light in a moving frame of reference. Then the emitted light waves are undergoing the Doppler effect. Once again, the results are perfectly compatible with the existence of the aether. The hard to detect aether wind was the main problem well before Michelson. Sir Airy, the famous astronomer, was strangely clinging to Fresnel's idea that the wind speed should be proportional to the refraction index for glass or water. His experience using a telescope filled up with water was still a failure. All those phenomena including Michelson's experiment and Bradley's aberration of light seemed totally unexplainable.

Considering the complexity of those phenomena and the lack of tools to check them, the 1900's mess is quite understandable. But I finally obtained flawless proofs that a moving observer always sees his environment as though he were perfectly stationary. Thanks to the virtual medium and my Time Scanner, I can easily demonstrate that apparently, all optical phenomena don't change in spite of the Doppler effect, through a now fully acceptable aether.

And once again, it is on condition that the emitter frequency really slows down and that Lorentz's contraction (especially that of an optical device such as a parabola) takes place only along the direction of motion. Those clips are especially revealing. They clearly show how curved waves undergoing the Doppler effect are reflected on a parabola. They are transformed into plane waves, but they become tilted to the theta angle = arc sin (v/c). Then they are reflected on a plane mirror in such a way that the interference pattern follows the phase wave, whose speed is 1/beta. All along this phase wave, Lorentz's  t'  "local time" does not change. Finally, the waves return to the parabola, which focuses them into a classical Airy Disk, albeit it is contracted and submitted to the same local time according to the phase wave. It turns out that Lorentz was right. It is a fact. It is undisputable...



The program is here :  Bradley_Aberration_Plain.5c.bas

The frequency must slow down in order to cancel the transverse wavelength contraction along orthogonal axes y and z. Below, my goal was to show how parallax is still possible in the presence of motion, in spite of the Doppler effect. As a matter of fact, parallax was Bradley's original idea. Opticians know very well that off-axis images obtained by means of a parabolic mirror suffer from coma and astigmatism. They also suffer from spherical aberration if the object distance is finite. In spite of this, parallax detection is still possible. And once again, the parabola must contract to do this accurately. This even includes the distance between two of them!



Program:  Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.bas

This movie clip especially shows that the two focuses occur at different "local times", which are given by the phase wave and by Lorentz's time equation.

Relativity is not the point.

We need a practical theory in order to obtain more correct results. We especially have to deal with GPS satellites whose results could be even more accurate. Because the Doppler effect is definitely involved, the Lorentz Transformations cannot be neglected any more. The Doppler effect is present, it is easily measurable, and according to those new results the parabola must contract in order to reflect microwaves correctly.  Here, speaking about space and time transformation is totally useless. It is rather a matter of true contraction and slower clocks. After all, only our measures on Earth are to be preferred; in this particular case we do not have to bother about local space and time. The satellite clocks must definitely indicate Standard Time, not their own slower time. One should avoid synchronizing them using radio signals transmitted from one to another because we know that this procedure ends up with a time shift. It is not a matter of Relativity, it is just a mechanical problem which can easily be solved thanks to the Lorentz transformations.

 Surely, our Earth is not perfectly stationary with respect to the aether. However, one must firstly examine how those phenomena should occur if it was the case. The observer orbiting in a satellite is fully aware of his abnormal situation. Because he knows that his speed simply cannot be zero, he must admit that his emitter is sending waves which are undergoing the Doppler effect. He also knows that this effect is easily detectable on Earth, which is postulated to be stationary. And so, because is is still unable to detect the Doppler effect, his only remaining option is to reasonably explain why.

The best way to do that is by means of this fantastic virtual medium which I used to make the video clips available in this page. Scientists working on the GPS system are aware that C compilers are now very fast on a Pentium processor and that today's graphic cards work great. Large arrays of computers working in parallel and even supercomputers are available. Thus, one can experiment those effects in a fast, accurate and effective manner in a very large virtual medium. It is a genuine laboratory despite the fact that it handles virtual waves.

Explaining Relativity.

About Lorentz's contraction effects, Henri Poincare wrote (Electricity and Optics, 1901) :

"This strange property would truly seem a "helpful hand" from Nature to hide from our eyes the absolute motion of the Earth in spite of optical phenomena. This cannot satisfy me..."

Well, he was wrong. This "strange property" seems indeed a miracle (not to say a conspiracy considering the additional time shift and, thirdly, those slower clocks). It seemed so unlikely that this could occur that Lorentz finally abandoned his original hypothesis, which was still the only reasonable one.

But today, thanks to this new virtual medium, and also to my Time Scanner, it becomes obvious that the orbiting observer is unable to detect his motion. Firstly, the phase wave cancels the Doppler effect. And later, the same phase wave cancels the time shift. Surprisingly, both focal planes appear simultaneous and perfectly symmetrical during a given t' time. This happens because waves traveling backward are faster, so that the information only appears simultaneous. In addition, because he himself is contracted, the observer cannot detect the remaining contraction either.

Now, we can explain why the observer is fooled.


Program:  Bradley_Aberration_Parallax_Scan.bas

Seeing this, one must admit that the relative speed of light is slower forward than backward. The difference seems to cancel the Doppler effect, but there is still a Doppler effect. From this point of view, the Earth being the preferred frame of reference, the speed difference only, not the absolute speed, should be considered. It becomes clear that optical phenomena and even mechanical phenomena still appear identical in the satellite environment. Even length contraction is unnoticeable because the observer is also contracted. This is why the observer orbiting in the satellite is fooled. We found the cause.

Now, let's examine the Bradley aberration of light.

Bradley's goal was to measure the distance to the nearest stars by detecting a parallax effect. The Earth's orbit proved to be a bit too small to do this, but Bradley unexpectedly discovered a different phenomenon. Because the speed of the Earth around the Sun is about 29 km/s, the telescope motion produces a small but measurable focus offset. Bradley soon realized that this effect was a consequence of the speed of light.

Our virtual medium can easily show this. It is quite impossible to set the emitter (which represents a star) several light years away, but a large parabola produces the equivalent plane waves. Then let's add two small parabolas (Bradley's telescope) moving in opposite directions the way they would do around the Sun at 6-month intervals. In this first experience, the Sun is postulated to be perfectly stationary and the telescope speed is exaggerated to 1/3 of the speed of light in order to obtain a more dramatic effect.


Program:  Bradley_Aberration_Stationary.bas

No surprise here: the Airy disk pattern reaches the point where the parabola optical axis was previously. This result is quite simple and understandable. It was a good idea to firstly show what is normally going on, though, because the two parabolas and the wave patterns no longer remain symmetric if the Sun is moving. Today, we know very well that the Sun is orbiting around the galaxy center even faster then the Earth does around the Sun.

The point is: Bradley did obtain a perfect symmetry. Such a result seemed to indicate that the sun is perfectly stationary with respect to the aether. Surely, the sun motion should rather introduce a severe asymmetry. Here, let's suppose that the Sun is moving at about one half of the speed of light. When both the Sun and the Earth are moving in the same direction, the speed of the Earth is accelerated to .5 + .33 = .83 c. Otherwise, it is rather slowed down to .5 - .33 = .23 c. So the Earth and the parabolas must periodically contract in accordance with Lorentz's shrinking factor. However, in order to reproduce the same 1/3 c velocity as above, as seen by the moving observer, one must refer to Poincare's law of speed addition, which is given by:

beta'' = (beta + beta') / (1 + beta * beta')

It turns out that the slowest and fastest composite speed should be .2 and .7143 c. Then the contraction difference is severe: 98% vs. 70%. Obtaining a symmetric result using those differently contracted parabolas now appears unlikely to be possible, especially in the presence of the additional Doppler effect. Poincare's 1901 theory ("optical phenomena are relative") was attractive because it was much simpler and apparently correct. I am quite sure that Lorentz did figure out such a scenario because Bradley and Michelson had severely damaged Newton's system. He had to abandon his hypothesis, for he was a great scientist. It simply could not work.


Program:  Bradley_Aberration.5c.bas

But surprisingly, the video below shows that it does work! Using my Time Scanner, which transforms a Doppler distorted environment the way a moving observer should see it, it becomes obvious that a perfect symmetry is still possible.


Program:  Bradley_Aberration.5c_Scan.bas

This is certainly the most amazing phenomenon ever. I did not doubt that when I initiated the video series because I know a lot about the Lorentz transformations and the Doppler effect. Writing so complicated programs was not a piece of cake, but  I finally succeeded in showing that Lorentz's theory definitely works great!

Lorentz's triumph is now complete. No doubt, this is the ultimate experiment. In the future, it will be repeated and improved to a high degree of perfection, and it will always yield the same fantastic results.

Lorentzian Relativity.

This leads to Lorentz's Relativity. Consequently, Special Relativity is deadly wounded. Einstein's version (actually that of Poincare) was indeed attractive because it yielded correct predictions. No doubt, it was valuable, but now we need to know why all this is possible. We need to know how matter works. The basic principle is that any moving system still mechanically works perfectly on condition that those strange effects take place. Because of them, the moving observer cannot be aware of his motion any more. He still see things in his environment as though he were perfectly at rest.

So it was important to elaborate the correct equation set  for this, as Lorentz's purpose was rather to cancel the Doppler effect on Maxwell's equations in a moving frame of reference. Surprisingly, Lorentz's x' and t' variables applied to the stationary system. This is weird. Knowing this, I just swapped them and easily obtained the equation set below many years ago:


The Lorentz Transformations.

This modified set is fully consistent with Lorentz's point of view.


Let's make things perfectly clear: Lorentzian Relativity simply cannot be explained without those equations. They must be adopted by any scientist who is interested in Lorentz's works, even though Lorentz neglected to put them down this way. Secondly, I demonstrated a long time ago that those equations also produce Lorentz's slower Doppler effect. In this case, x variables stand for axial distances in wavelengths and t variables stand for the wave period, hence in 2*pi units. And thirdly, this is highly consistent with my Time Scanner. Three independent and spectacular confirmations of the same facts cannot be a coincidence. The Lorentz Transformations are definitely a law of nature, and they are all about matter mechanics. Clearly, they will lead us well beyond Relativity.

Fortunately, in this form, Lorentz's equations become quite easy to understand. One must bear in mind that all x and x' variables stand for absolute distances in light seconds, so that c = 1. On the contrary, while only t variables stand for absolute seconds, Lorentz carefully explained that t' variables do not indicate the "true time". They only indicate slower seconds that clocks in this moving frame of reference should display. Suppose that velocity is 50% of the speed of light, hence beta = 0.5 and Lorentz's contraction factor is: g = 0.866. And finally, x = 1 and a one second delay (t = 1) occurred.

1. g * x  means that matter and distances contract to 86.6% of their original length along the direction of motion in accordance with Lorentz's contraction factor.

2. beta * t  means that matter simply moves to x' = 0.5 * 1 = 0.5 light second after a one second delay according to its speed. This is Galileo's Relativity Principle. However, because the coordinate was shifted to x'=0.866 after the contraction occurred, the final x' position is 0.866+0.5= 1.366 light second.

3. g * t means that moving clocks tick 86.6% slower, once again according to Lorentz's contraction factor. More exactly, the electron frequency and that of any cyclic mechanical process slows down. This is why the transverse wavelength, hence transverse distances, remains constant according to Lorentz's y'=y; z'=z. 

4. beta * x means that a clock whose original position was x = 1 (but whose position is currently x' =1.366 light second) indicates minus 0.5 second as compared to another clock whose original position was x = 0 (but whose position is currently x' =0.5 light second).

This time shift is important because, in this frame of reference, the relative speed of light is three times faster backward (1+beta=1.5) than forward (1beta=0.5). As a consequence, and additionally because the contraction is unnoticeable as well, the clock synchronization procedure using light or radio signals perfectly matches this anomaly. It should be emphasized that this is not only a mere time shift. Cause and effect relationships are undergoing the same Doppler distortion, simply because causes are transmitted by waves. Thus, speaking about space and time transformation is meaningless and useless. One should rather consider that this appearance of simultaneity leads to an amazing but understandable mystification: the moving observer cannot detect his true speed through the aether any more.

This time shift can also be cross-checked by means of the phase wave, where Lorentz's t' time remains the same. It is where transverse waves incoming from opposite directions meet, given the fact that they are tilted to an angle which is given by: arc sin (v/c). The result is a scissor effect. Because of this constant but "moving" t' time, two observers A and B placed on the displacement axis will think that the wave front crosses this axis at the same time. So it will seem parallel to it, not tilted. I invented my Time Scanner thanks to this phenomenon. The phase wave is well visible in the Bradley_Aberration_Parallax.5c.mkv clip above. In any event, I made another video clip in order to show this in a more dramatic manner. It shows how waves behave in a moving confocal and symmetric twin-parabola system, which is a very rarely shown in optical or radio apparatus. Here, the phase wave is visible two times, firstly for plane but tilted waves, then for moving circular standing waves (please observe that they look very much like my moving electron, but in 2-D only).


FreeBasic program:  Phase_Wave.bas

Poincare's Relativity Postulate.

So, let's return to the very beginning of this story. In 1904, Henri Poincaré made a lecture to the International Congress of Arts and Science in St-Louis, Missouri, USA. No doubt that Albert Einstein was well aware of what he said:

"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation, so that we have not or cannot have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion."


Those are flawless proofs that actually, in the presence of motion, optical phenomena remain surprisingly natural and consistent on condition that the Lorentz Transformations apply to matter the same way the Doppler effect applies to waves responsible for matter mechanics. That is why the observer "cannot have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion".

The point is: most certainly, the observer is moving, and matter does contract. We are now aware that this phenomena is possible in the presence of the aether. On the contrary, nobody ever explained how such a wonder could be possible without the aether. Let's face it: the idea that one's motion with respect to another material body is purely relative was attractive, partly because its basic principles were simple, and obviously because its predictions were correct. Unfortunately, it must be rejected because it is unreasonable and misleading. It is a severe obstacle to understanding things. In physics, even a correct prediction is unsatisfactory. The ultimate goal is to explain things.


This site is very popular and it becomes more and more discussed. Thanks to my efforts, things are about to change. A lot of new sites whose subject is "Lorentzian Relativity" (check Google) are available. This is quite a revolution. Thus, if one still prefers to rely on Einstein's weird principles and paradoxes, making all those new results still compatible with his version of the theory will soon become unsustainable.

I admit that Einstein's predictions are correct (clearly, Relativity is true), but his interpretation of what is really going on is not.


| 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 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 |

  1. Matter is made of Waves

  2. The electron

  3. Ivanov's Waves

  4. Spherical Standing Waves

  5. The Doppler Effect

  6. The Aether

  7. The Michelson Interferometer

  8. The Lorentz Transformations

  9. The Time Scanner

  10. Lorentzian Relativity Page 1

  11. Lorentzian Relativity Page 2

  12. The Relativistic Big Bang

  13. The Electron Phase Shift

  14. The Wave Mechanics

  15. Electrostatic Fields

  16. Nuclear Forces

  17. Active and Reactive Mass

  1. Kinetic Energy

  2. Fields of Force

  3. The Fields of Force Dynamics

  4. Magnetic Fields

  5. Gravity

  6. Light

  7. Quarks

  8. Protons

  9. Atoms

  10. Chemistry

  11. The Wave Theory

  12. The Wave Theory Postulates

  13. The Theory of Evolution

  14. Errors to Correct

  15. Proofs and Experiences

  16. The Huygens Principle

  17. Conclusion

Gabriel LaFreniere

Bois-des-Filion in Québec.

Email  Please read this notice.

On the Internet since September 2002. Last update December 3, 2009.


????Mail.ru Locations of visitors to this page