Recovering the Lorentz Ether - Can Einstein's Relativity be Saved?
The hundredth anniversary of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has brought celebrations, but also attacks on the legacy of a man whose name has become - for most of us - to be seen as synonymous with "genius". Discontent with relativity's unresolved paradoxes and the lack of a link-up of its basic postulates with physical reality seems to have been increasing in the last two decades.
Just a few recent articles on my own sites that document the discontent are Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd - A Unified View - Debating Einstein and Relativity Fraud
Franco Selleri
Image credit: Austrian Central Library for Physics
Franco Selleri of the Physics department of Bari University in Italy has a different approach. He is critical of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, but he believes that - with a change from the Lorentz transformations to what he calls "equivalent transformations" and by postulating a privileged frame of reference, one that is "at rest" with regard to the rest of the universe - much of the theory can be saved.
Noting that even Einstein himself in the later part of his life was not convinced that his relativity would hold up to the scrutiny of time, Selleri says we can use what's good in relativity while doing away with the contradictions and paradoxes that are plaguing it and that are increasingly seen as fatal weaknesses.
If nothing else, this is an interesting proposal.
The paper was published in Apeiron and is available here in PDF format.
Here the first part describing the problems with relativity. For the full paper, see the PDF linked here above and at the end of the introductory part...
- - -
Recovering the Lorentz ether
F. Selleri
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bari
INFN, Sezione di Bari
The description of natural phenomena by observers in motion is a problem that many consider solved once and for all by the Lorentz transformations of the Theory of Special Relativity (TSR), but that actually was left open. Consequences of my alternative transformations of the space and time variables are: (i) an explanation of the empirical data better than provided by the TSR; (ii) the elimination of those features of the TSR which give rise to paradoxes. This is obtained thanks to the recovery of a privileged inertial frame in which the Lorentz ether is at rest. In the present paper I expound the basic ideas of the research leaving aside its mathematical parts.
1. Difficulties in relativity
The theories of special and general relativity had great success in explaining many known phenomena and in predicting new unexpected effects. They constitute so important advances in our knowledge of the physical world and belong forever to the history of the natural sciences, similarly to Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetism. It is however very difficult to believe that they are forms of final, not modifiable knowledge. On the contrary, if there is an important lesson to learn from epistemology (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn) it is about the conjectural, provisional, improvable nature of the foundations of the physical theories of the XXth century.
In March 1949, answering his friend M. Solovine who had sent him an affective letter for the seventieth birthday, Einstein wrote: "You imagine that I look backwards on the work of my life with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks very different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will resist firmly." [LS] Einstein did not hide the probable transitoriness of his creations. On April 4, 1955, he wrote the last paper of his life. It was a three pages long preface (in German) to a book celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the theory of relativity. It ended with the following words: "The last, quick remarks must only demonstrate how far in my opinion we still are from possessing a conceptual basis of physics, on which we can somehow rely." [EF] One could speak of a solemn declaration of failure, but above all one has to admire not only the scientific, but also the ethical dimension of the great scientist, who had devoted the superhuman efforts of an entire lifetime to the attempt of reaching the deepest truths of nature and now, arrived at the end, declared to posterity: "I did not succeed."
The successes of the relativistic theories are very well known. The reciprocal convertibility of energy and mass, the effects of velocity and gravitation on the pace of clocks, the weight of light and the precession of planetary motions, provide only a partial summary of the great conquests of Einsteinian physics. Nevertheless, it would not be correct to conclude that every comparison of the theoretical predictions with experiments invariably led to a perfect agreement. Physics is a human activity and from us inherits the habit to parade the successes and to hide difficulties and failures. Thus only silence surrounded the Sagnac effect (discovered in 1913) for which there is a veritable explanatory inability of the two relativistic theories, the attempts by Langevin, Post, Landau and Lifshitz notwithstanding. There are, furthermore, the half explanations of the aberration of starlight and of the clock paradox, phenomena for which the mathematical formalism of the theory can reproduce the observations, at the price of twisting the meaning of symbols beyond righteousness.
One should never forget that behind the equations of a theory there is a huge qualitative structure made of empirical results, generalizations, hypotheses, philosophical choices, historical conditionings, personal tastes, conveniences. When one becomes aware of this reality and compares it with the little portrait of physics handed down by logical empiricism, which is worth less than a caricature, one easily understands that relativity, not only can present weak points side by side with its undeniable successes, but can also survive some failures. The correctness of the mathematical formalism is not enough to validate a scientific structure as coherent and not contradictory. I might add that not even unconditional support from hundreds of physicists can ensure that a theory is free of unsolved problems, because far too often, from the time of their university studies, their thinking is oriented toward uncritical acceptance of the dominating theory. Rationality and consent are also different matters in the world of research.
In reality the two relativistic theories are crammed with paradoxes. Let us make a list, with no claim of completeness, limited to the TSR: the velocity of a light signal, which the theory considers equal for observers at rest and observers pursuing it with velocity 0.99 ; the idea that the simultaneity of spatially separated events does not exist in nature and must therefore be established with a human convention; the relativity of simultaneity, according to which two events simultaneous for an observer in general are no more such for a different observer; the contraction of moving objects and the retardation of moving clocks, phenomena for which the theory does not provide a description in terms of objectivity; the asymmetrical ageing of the twins in relative motion in a theory waving the flag of relativism; the hyperdeterministic universe of relativity, fixing in the least details the future of every observer; the conflict between the reciprocal transformability of mass and energy and the ideology of relativism, which declares all inertial observers perfectly equivalent so depriving energy of its full reality; the existence of a discontinuity between the inertial reference systems and those endowed with a very small acceleration; the propagations from the future towards the past, generated in the theory by the possible existence of superluminal signals.
How is it possible that respected experts of relativistic physics believe that these are not real paradoxes? The answer is not difficult and is based on what in Italian is called "buon senso" (literally: good sense). This expression is easily translated in all neo-Latin languages, but is absent in other languages. English speaking authors use sometimes "common sense", which carries however a very different idea because the common sense is that of the majority and the history of science teaches that in scientific matters the majority is rarely right. On the other hand "buon senso" relates to the "sensate esperienze" of Galilei. Well, if good sense tells us that a certain prediction of a theory is unreasonable, there are two possibilities. Firstly, it is possible that the good sense misleads us, secondly that in the theory there are more or less explicit hypotheses contrary to the natural order of things giving its predictions an incorrect meaning. Many physicists and philosophers of the XXth century followed the fashion of declaring good sense obsolete, but the second road can easily be traveled over and allows one to get rid of all the paradoxes of relativity.
Naturally, it is not a priori obvious that the paradoxes can be eliminated without spoiling the successes of the theory. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the theory reviewed in the present article, based on the replacement of the Lorentz by the "inertial" transformations, not only explains all what the TSR does, but succeeds also where the latter does not. It explains the Sagnac effect, for example.
. . .
2. Conventional simultaneity
3. Two empirical facts
4. The "equivalent" transformations
5. Relativism and the energy idea
6. Einstein's ether
7. The twin paradox
8. The aberration of light
9. The Sagnac effect
10. Cosmology
- - -
Please see Selleri's FULL PAPER here...
Another, more recent paper by Franco Selleri is also available here (PDF file - 4.6 MB):
Are the two relativistic theories compatible?
- - -
Franco Selleri - Weak Relativity
the physics of space and time without paradoxes
Available as a PDF file. The book has 180 pages and the PDF weighs 12.9 MB so if you decide to download, you may need to have some patience, depending on how good your connection is and how busy the server might be ...
In February 2009, Franco Selleri, who is a professor at the Bari University physics department, has published a book titled "WEAK RELATIVITY - the physics of space and time without paradoxes". It is a collection of what Selleri has found and published in papers on relativity, with arguments and results put together all in one place.
The chapters are
1. Einstein positivist/realist
2. Relativistic paradoxes
3. Relativism and the nature of energy
4. Einstein's relativistic ether
5. Simultaneity, the key idea?
6. The basic empirical evidence
7. The new transformations
8. Synchronization independence
9. The Sagnac effect: e1=0
10. The rotating platform: e1=0
11. Linear accelerations: e1=0
12. Overcoming the block universe: e1=0
13. The aberration of starlight: e1=0
14. The differential retardation of clocks
15. The Lorentz ether
16. The cosmological question
17. Superluminal propagations: e1=0
18. Weak relativity
Some background that came with a letter in the book:
That, which you hold in your hands is version zero of the book. It contains the premises, the proofs and the results. There is a version 1 coming up soon, which will be published by Apeiron publishers in Montreal. Added material is mainly comparisons with the research of other authors. Other versions - two, three, ... are possible in the future, but will depend on the interest that version zero and one will find.
Since 1995 I have been publishing the results of my research in journals such as Foundations of Physics and in collections of articles of different authors, or in conference proceedings, etc. Due to this fractioning it was practically impossible that even one physicist could have read all the more important articles without falling prey to superficial or partial evaluation. That is what stimulated the idea of a book to review and organize the results obtained in the various articles. The strong part of the book is made up of 5 or 6 independent demonstrations of absolute simultaneity - which exorcised the curse of Poincaré.
The concluding part of the book was written while under attack by a group of inbecile computer hackers who somehow took a dislike to me without my really being able to find out why. Almost every day I have strange invasions into my computer with files vanishing, documents modified, and other trouble. A few days ago, the folders vanished, while the files remained, causing an organizational disaster. To finish the work I had to make several tactical moves. One of those was to take refuge, with my computer, in a distant country estate. Distance has finally put an end even to the most pernicious minor systems of computer-to-computer connection (wireless, LAN, 1394, ...). And in this way, WEAK REALISM has found its conclusion.
Copies of the book can be obtained from
"digilabs"
Via Albanese 61, Bari
telephone: +39 080 5422849
email: info@digilabs.it
See also related:
WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG
Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment
A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist
The fact that Einstein was a plagiarist is common knowledge in the physics community. What isn't so well-known is that the sources Einstein parroted were also largely unoriginal. In 1919, writing in the Philosophical Magazine Harry Bateman, a British mathematician and physicist who had emigrated to the United States, unsuccessfully sought acknowledgment of his work.
"The appearance of Dr Silberstein's recent article on General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis encourages me to restate my own views on the subject," Bateman wrote.
"I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of general relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers."
Herbert Dingle Was Correct!
An Investigation of the First Refutation of Relativity - By Harry H. Ricker III
This is a series of articles that looks into Herbert Dingle's claim that Einstein's Special Relativity is inconsistent .
"One of the most interesting of Dingle's arguments appeared in the September 8, 1962 issue of Nature under the title "Special Theory of Relativity"1. This short note by Herbert Dingle points out "what appears to be an inconsistency in the kinematical part of Einstein's special theory of relativity." Here the thesis is presented that Dingle's modest claim is based upon a mathematically correct derivation of the transformation of time from a moving frame into a rest frame following Einstein's methods. It is concluded that Dingle's assertion of an inconsistency in Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity is correct."
Challenging Einstein's Special Relativity: Herbert Dingle - Science at the Crossroads
On the Nonlinear Continuum Mechanics of the Luminiferous Medium
by Christo Christov
In this work, we argue that adding the displacement current in Ampere's law by Maxwell was equivalent to considering the field as an elastic continuum. To corroborate this point, we prove that, when linearized, the governing equations of an incompressible elastic continuum yield Maxwell's equations as corollaries. The divergence of the deviator stress tensor is analogous to the electric field, while the vorticity (the curl of velocity field) is interpreted as the magnetic field. The nonlinearity of the material time derivative (the advective part of acceleration) is interpreted as the Lorentz force. Thus we have established that the electrodynamics can be fully explained if one assumes that it is the manifestation of the internal forces of an underlying elastic material which we term the metacontinuum.
The possible detection of the absolute continuum is also discussed. First, a new interferometry experiment is proposed in which the first-order Doppler effect can be measured and thus the presence of a medium at rest can be unequivocally established. Second, the famous experiment of Ives and Stilwell is reexamined with a modified Bohr-Rydberg formula for the emitted frequencies from a moving atom, and it is shown that the results of Ives and Stilwell are fully compatible with the presence of an absolute medium.
Sid Bertram comments (by email):
Did you see my paper as published in Hadronic Journal Supplement, B, 439-450 (2001). It provides a classical derivation of the equations of special relativity including a derivation of the Lorentz transform. I'm enclosing it.
Electromagnetic Theory and the Lorentz Transform
Sidney Bertram, Ph.D., Fellow IEEE
Abstract
The differential relationships of electromagnetics are derived as a direct extension of electrostatics by considering that charge fields are gas-like with a characteristic velocity c. Two kinds of transforms are involved: simple time transforms (no x terms) describe the generation of mutual energy at every point in the fields while the Lorentz transform describes how the energy developed in the fields sum to the effective energy at the charge centers.
With propagation at a finite velocity in the fields, there is more time available for moving charges to interact with stationary charges, so their mutual energy is increased. Interacting charges are therefore subjected to induced forces when the energy changes as a charge accelerates. When charges are moving in conductors, their mutual energy is determined by their relative velocity, so they are subjected to ‘magnetic forces’ as described by the cross-product term in their energy. (The square terms are canceled by the energy associated with the ions left behind in the conductors by the moving charges.)
The mutual energy formed by a particle field approaching a detector appears as a ring that converges on the detector along a cone such that its location on the cone at any time is related to the location of the moving particle by the Lorentz transform. If a moving particle decays, its ring, persisting for some time after the particle decays, gives the particle the appearance of an increased lifetime.
The derivations are compatible with Einstein’s postulates.
Download Sidney Bertram's paper...
"Franco Selleri of the Physics department of Bari University in Italy has a different approach. He is critical of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, but he believes that - with a change from the Lorentz transformations to what he calls "equivalent transformations" and by postulating a privileged frame of reference, one that is "at rest" with regard to the rest of the universe - much of the theory can be saved."
I am afraid the problem has a simple solution. If Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle: the speed of light does depend on the speed v of the light source or observer) is correct, nothing can be saved. Einstein's relativity will have to be characterized as a successful attempt to destroy, irreversibly, scientific rationality. For 100 years people have been forced to deal with and worship wisdoms like "I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours." Titles like "The end of science" would not be an exaggeration.
Pentcho Valev
The experiment done in 1972 in flying cesium clocks in airplanes is interesting. The westbound clocks retarded 59 ns, the clocks at rest on earth stayed at 0 ns, while the eastbound clocks advanced 273 ns. Thus, Einstein's contention of no preferred reference frame is wrong. The faster the clock, the closer it is to being static in the aether.
So, if the direction of velocity is important, what is the preferred direction? An experiment can determine the preferred direction. It is most probably the vector sum direction that the point on the Earth, the Earth, Sun, and Milky Way galaxy are moving in the universe. That is, the aether is static and we are moving thru it due to the complex motions of our Earth, our solar system, our galaxy, and our cluster. From stellar blue shifts, we know this net direction of travel - I'll call direction 1. Therefore, another interesting experiment would be thus:
Four airplanes with Cesium clocks take off from an airport. Plane A varies it's heading so that it is always pointing it's nose as close as possible towards the direction 1, plane B flies as close as possible directly away from direction 1, plane C flies with it's left wing pointed as close as possible towards towards the direction 1, and plane D flies with it's right wing pointed as close as possible towards towards the direction 1. They fly at a constant speed thru the air. After 10 hours of flying (i.e. as long as possible), the time on the clocks are radioed back to the airport. The outcome should be that the clock A will be the the slowest, and clock B will be the fastest. This is because the clock B will be closest to zero velocity in the universal aether.
If so, then this is the answer to the twin's paradox. [i.e. 2 twin's travel in rockets away from each other at high speed and return. If each see's the other twin slow down due to his relative speed, how can they both see the other age slower? The answer is that they don't. They will make the round trip and come back at the same age] Time isn't changing with speed, all that is changing is the affect of gravity of distant stars on the shape of the matter (e.g. of the Cesium electron cloud in the Cesium clocks).
Reply to Dave Weber:
Unless Hafele & Keating paper is a fraud, as are all "confirmations" of Einstein's relativity:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm
Pentcho Valev
Your plot of the data of the Hafele & Keating paper is very telling. The gageR&R of the 1972 study was very poor. It is apparent that the authors should have selected from a group of 100 Cesium clocks, ten clocks with the lowest drift rate (i.e. like clock 408, but ten of them). This is acceptable practice, when your gage has a drift, to average many gages (i.e. enough gages to make the average error acceptably small).
Also, because the eastward flight was done at a different time that the westward flight, this introduces the potential error of the velocity of the Earth in orbit around the Sun, the Sun in orbit around the center of the Solar system, the Solar system in orbit around the Milky Way, the Milky Way in orbit around the cluster, etc.
To randomize the external effects of motion of the aether past the planes, it would be best to measure the total sum of all of the velocity vectors of each plane using the static universe as the reference frame (that is, a minute by minute speed and 3D heading relative to a distant galaxy, then do a vector sum to get the net velocity of the plane).
I think that this experiment could be done, if there are enough clocks to allow averaging to statistically improve the gageR&R. The average drift of the clocks should be 1/10th of the resolution that is desired in the experiment. It is acceptable to throw out clocks from consideration at the end of the test, as long as one highest and one lowest are thrown out as tails in the distribution. Doing otherwise can skew the results.
A less expensive test would be to just record the clock time for all of the GPS satellites that we have in orbit. Record the velocity (relative to a distant galaxy) on a satellite for a short time and record the actual time change of the clock. Then, take the average of millions of these time changes for different values of velocities (x,y,z coordinates) over at a year's time. Then, polar plot the average time changes versus velocity.
If there is a velocity effect on the Cesium atoms, then the polar plot will show a preferential direction for time change. If the preferential direction is the same as the Earth's motion in the universe, then the aether is a reference frame the same as the reference frame of distant matter. If velocity has no effect on the Cesium atoms, then the polar plot will be uniform and have very little drift (as is your contention).
I wonder if this data is easily available for analysis?
Peter F. Robson comments (by email):
Thank you for passing on your last posting on Einstein's relativity.
The only problem with Einstein's theory of relativity is that it is being hacked to bits by firstly his own very complex mathematics which very few if any are able to understand and then by a large numbers of other peoples fantastic mathematics and baseless notions. The only reason that Einstein began to loose confidence in his own basic theory of relativity is because he was persuaded to believe in other peoples theories which in the light of practical simplicity were not worth the paper that they were written on.
In down to earth practical terms general relativity is as simple as A B C.
People look up at the sky and think that they can see a mass of material objects suspended in an endless space, as though space had some kind of physical structure. This is simply an illusion produced by the separation of material units and the distribution of light.
What they can actually see is a very large number of completely separate material units shining out of a total state of absolute nothing.
If one were to try to originally start the creation of the universe by the initial creation of space one would find that firstly there is nothing of space that could be practically created and secondly it could have no finite dimension or direction.
Whereas if one starts the creation of the universe by the creation of matter through the practical mechanics of the very high concentration of energy, and create this matter in very many separate individual units all of which must by the forces and pressures of gravity assume the shape of the sphere, then one could not help but create spaces of complete nothing between all of the spheres. Add all of these spaces together and what you finish up with is a colossal single space consisting of absolutely nothing at all, meaning that space cannot continue into an imagined state of infinity when there is simply nothing of space to continue anywhere.
If you take away any structure of space leaving only spaces between units of matter all in various states of motion in various directions relative to nothing at all, with no fixed points and nothing that can be confirmed as being completely at rest which one could relate any motion to, then all that you can be left with is general relativity. It is all beautifully simple.
Much of Einstein’s work as with many other scientists before and after Einstein is and has been influenced by observations of light spectrum applied to very many experiments including the atomic clock. Virtually all of the experimental results being analysed with the use of the much hailed Doppler effect of light-waves born of the Doppler effect of sound-waves.
Now, the hard fact of the matter which is beyond any and all dispute is that the light spectrum upon which the Doppler effect is taken is caused directly by the separation of the colours of light through the simple process of light refraction which always occurs when a beam of light is set to pass through a triangular section of clear glass known as a prism.
I have proved and can again prove at any time in any place beyond all possible argument that the refraction of light through a triangular clear glass prism has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed light-waves.
I have proved and I can prove that the light effect known famously as Young’s two slit test showing a spread of seven or more light reflection bars on a display screen which so-say prove the existence of light-waves, have in terms of hard indisputable fact absolutely nothing at all to do with any kind of wave process.
In a very small number of cases the light-wave theory may appear to apply but not in others.
In a small number of cases the light particle theory can appear to apply but not in others.
In the sense of realistic down to earth practical mechanics which includes the mechanics of the natural phenomena, to try to glue two failed theories together and thenceforth call it particle-wave duality is utterly ridiculous.
There are no sound-waves. There are no light-waves. There are no light particles. All that is being observed in so called particle accelerators are tiny man-made units of energy created through the light collision process.
What is needed are brand new theories of sound and light which are based solely upon brand new experiments that are completely free of outdated historical theory and purely fanciful notion.
Yours respectfully
Peter F Robson.
Phil Lawson comments by email:
My friend Dr. de Silva and I believe in the Maxwell concept of the Ether. We just wrote this book and it is nearly ready...
This is a draft of our work in progress:
THE CONCEPT OF AN ETHER IN POST-MODERN PHYSICS
Abstract:
The existence of a material medium or ether for the propagation of electromagnetic waves was an essential requirement for the acceptance of Maxwell’s theory in its early days. However, a series of observations culminating in the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the abandonment of this hypothesis, and its replacement by the special theory of relativity. This forced Newton’s ideas of the absolute nature of space and time to be set aside and in the process showed that Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic field retained their covariant transformation properties under the new dispensation. In this paper we revisit the notion of an ether within the context of our exposure over a period of 100 plus years to evolving notions of the physical universe.
Specifically, the object of the research described in this paper is to examine the possibility of describing the physical properties of the classical ether of electromagnetism in terms of an infinitely flexible viscous plasma medium, consisting of elementary particles that carry a magnetic charge -> a monopole. Upper and lower bounds on the particle size can be calculated using cosmological data relating to the mass of the universe and its size. The motion of these particles is described by the probabilistic laws of statistical mechanics due to the random nature of the collisions of the particles comprising the plasma. The particles are subject to a force consisting of an ordered component with a superimposed disordered part. This force manifests itself as a tension force in an ensemble of particles that move collectively as a vibrating string with a determinate group velocity. We model the physics using a canonical ensemble for the probability density from which the pressure exerted by the particles is calculated. The thermodynamic properties of this plasma can then be computed, enabling the susceptibility and dielectric constants to be calculated. The analysis is generalized to include gravitational effects.
A Navier-Stokes like equation is proposed that incorporates classical viscous effects for the ethereal medium and includes Einstein’s cosmological factor. A major focus of our analysis is to construct a self consistent theory compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. An added bonus is a first time estimate for the mass of a monopole.
Comments are welcome.
Reply to Phil Lawson:
The ether hypothesis has a (ballistic) alternative: AS FAR AS THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONCERNED, light moves like bullets in empty space and therefore its speed is c+v, where c is the speed of the photons with respect to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. So perhaps you should compare the two hypotheses before presenting the technicalities of your theory. I think any evidence speaks in favour of the ballistic hypothesis.
Best regards,
Pentcho Valev
Speed of light: particles in empty space or waves in ether? See discussion entitled "RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" and started in
http://www.physorg.com/news10295.html
Pentcho Valev
Sagnac and Michelson-Morley experiments are explained by Newton's physics and refute Einstein's theory and Aether hypothesis
(received by email from Jose Ledesma)
When Sagnac's device is at rest, both beams, travelling in opposite direction with same speed c, start and finish together at the plate. When the device rotates, the plate tangential speed is v and both beams start together at same speed c with respectto the plate, but with respect to the device rotation center, the beams' speeds are c + v and c - v, which means different tangential speed and different centrifugal acceleration for each beam.
Centrifugal acceleration, even perpendicular, does affect the beams' trajectory and their arrival times; just remember the cannonball trajectory between two fixed points; if gravitational acceleration were higher than usual, the parabolic trajectory would be longer, and without gravity the trajectory would be direct and shorter possible. It's the same if we think of light as wave . The higher the Sagnac device rotation speed, the more difference in beams' centrifugal acceleration and arrival times; the more accelerated beam arrives later because of its longer travel. If this experiment responds clearly to "before aether Newton's physics", why wasn't this fact recognized and this paradigm declared obsolete and inadequate for studies in modern physics?
The answer are two beliefs inversely arranged in the scientist's mind, since the original and non-contradictory physics of Newton is without aether, and the paradoxical theory of Einstein has aether in it. Remember when aether was invented Newton had been dead many decades before; aether doesn't belong to his physics and it is logically opposite to it. Newton never said that his relativity principle was only for dynamic but he said that light speed obeys to velocity addition theorem and travels with any speed in vacuum. The aether inventors have been who said the contrary thing. Michelson had arrived at the correct conclusion saying that his experiment didn't refute Newton's laws but the aether attached to them many decades later. If Michelson's experiments have proven the general validity of Galileo-Newton relativity and the aether non-existence, why aren't we living under the Newton's laws but in Einstein's paradoxical universe?
Einstein hasn't ejected the aether from physics; his theory is one more attempt to join the aether with relativity. The actual S.R.T meaning is that every reference system is at rest respect the Lorentz's aether, which is impossible because every reference system is in relative motion. A theory based in contradictory principles just generates more contradictions; the first one appears when Einstein finds that Michelson's interferometer has been shortened in its own reference system.
We are living in Einstein's paradoxical universe because we haven't discovered the principal consequence of the Michelson-Morley experiment which conciliates logic and physics: the wave of light propagation medium belongs to the sources that are the apparatus's mirrors in this case. An "aether" for every material body looks strange at the beginning but it's logic, coherent and there isn't another alternative; Einstein's theory is dramatically more strange. The main obstacle for accepting one "aether" for every reference system is in our mind because we are in the subjacent belief that material bodies are just what exist under their surfaces where mechanical interactions have place. But interactions by electric, magnetic and gravitation fields shows us that material bodies have not limits; these infinite fields are part of them because there isn't a third and universal medium where to exist, it would be contrary to the well proven relativity principle. Any theory based in a third medium existence is not supported by any evidence and condemned to fail due its lack of logic. Look how Newton's physics is able for giving non-contradictory explanation for current physics matters:
When Einstein supposed a same light speed for two different reference systems, he thought he was using his new brand second postulate. But actually he was using, unconsciously, the "before aether Newton physics" for interactions between particles whose relative speed are comparable to light speed. Action and reaction are not instantaneous but occur at light speed between interacting bodies, by contact or by fields. So, the time between action and reaction become important when relative speed of interacting bodies are near to light speed, that is clearly showed by Pythagorean factor. Note that the only one reading possible of this factor is the light speed relativity. So the interaction force becomes zero between bodies when their relative speed is the same that light's, so their trajectories are not affected. Mass doesn't become infinite like it's the current explanation. This phenomenon also obtains an intelligible description by the "before aether Newton's physics".
If mass doesn't increase then mass and energy equivalence is false. So much potential energy in nucleus is explainable by so much protons forced together against their repelling forces in a minuscule place.
José Ledesma
So can Einstein's relativity be saved? I am afraid not only Einstein's relativity but the rest of modern physics is also doomed. Einstein himself predicted this at the end of his life - see discussion started in
http://www.physorg.com/news67525162.html
Pentcho Valev
Many of the discussions I started on internet disappeared so let me repeat one of the most important arguments of mine.
Relativity hypnotists wish to know why Einstein was silent about momentum and mass of the photon:
(www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-6/p11a.html - link no longer active)
Other hypnotists have provided the answer:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."
In other words, the speed of light can be 300000km/s in Position 1, 300001km/s in Position 2, 300002km/s in Position 3 etc. An even more informed hypnotist, Tom Roberts, explains further in sci.physics.relativity:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Valev confuses *velocity* of light with *speed* of light!
> AFAIK Einstein basically thought in German, which does not have
> different words for "speed" and "velocity" ("die Geschwindigkeit" is
> used for both). Certainly his "velocity of propagation" could be phrased
> as "speed of propagation" without changing the underlying physics.
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Note that the relevant problem is WHETHER THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, not whether the photon is massless. The variability
of the speed of light in a gravitational field implies (through the application of the equivalence principle) that the speed of light in the absence of a gravitational field is c+v, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. This means that VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD IS FATAL FOR EINSTEIN'S THEORY AND MODERN PHYSICS IN GENERAL:
Albert Einstein:
"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho,
in my universe the speed of light is variable, but it does not depend on either the speed of the source or the observer.
Light, for instance, slows down when passing through certain materials (glass, water) and speeds back up to 'normal' after it exits the zone of drag.
Motion of the source would make light shift its wavelength - same with motion of the observer.
But gravitation - and there I believe you are right - could well influence the speed of light by influencing the sub-stratum that light propagates in.
Sepp,
In order to solve the problems you raise, we should first analyse
www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp. 2-4
Then we should answer the question: The receiver measures the speed of the coming light to be:
A) c
B) c+v
As you can see, the problem is purely technical.
Pentcho
C'=C+V IS EINSTEIN'S DISCOVERY
The formula c'=c+v which is often advanced by anti-relativists is an anathema to Einstein's zombies. It implies that the speed of light depends on v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. However hypnotists in the relativity cult know that Einstein himself has deduced this formula, in accordance with his principle of maximum absurdity:
Relativity hypnotists:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]...... Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
Other relativity hypnotists:
www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's formula and you obtain c'=c+v.
The zombie world should immediately stop worshipping at the portrait of Einstein (who irreversibly destroyed rationality in science) and start worshipping at the portrait of the martyr, Bryan Wallace (who tried to reverse the irreversible):
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Pentcho Valev
Any true scientist who is willing to pause for a moment, take a look with open mindedness, can see and understand the obvious, but real statement that NATURE is trying to make to us. Nearly a decade before Einstein, Poincaré formulated his Space-Time. Einstein at first did not accept Space-Time. Physics seemed to be on the right track at that time. Then along came Einstein's Relativity. It is merely correction to the incorrectly formulated Classical Principles. Recall, Einstein said in his own words: "If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false." {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}.
The Dark Matter, Dark Energies and all that other Dark stuff is also such an attempt to correct the misunderstood and misinterpreted observations of Nature. I invite you to take a look at my Extinction Shift Principle, Mathematical Proof with observational evidence, a Pure Classical solution to both Gravitation and Electromagnetism: www.extinctionshift.com
The BOOK presents for the very first time the correct use of Galilean Transformations of Velocities in the framework of Euclidean Space Geometry. It is a MAP to EXACT SOLUTIONS and the CORRECT EXPLANATIONS to the problems of both Gravitation and Electromagnetism using PURE CLASSICAL PHYSICS only...
EINSTEIN: ETHER PARTLY EXISTS
Somewhat paradoxically, Einstein's deification is due to his mediocrity. What thinkers like Poincare regarded as dismal absurdity, e.g. I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours, was offered by Einstein to the dazed world in combination with superimposed absurdities: I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be FASTER than yours.
Yet, although Einstein showered the dazed world with absurdities, he was extremely sensitive to potential danger (like any other juggler). So for Einstein ether did exist but only in a sense in which this existence did not threaten the divine theory:
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html :
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable..."
Pentcho Valev
THE CONCLUSION EINSTEIN DID NOT DRAW
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
Examples of this sort also suggest that the speed of light cannot be determined by the elastic properties of the ether, that is, independently of the speed of the light source, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is: In so far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model of light (rediscovered by Einstein himself) is correct. The speed of light is c'=c+v, where c is the relative speed of the photons and their source and v is the relative speed of the source and the observer.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
The genius among geniuses at the end of his career:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE FIELD, THE PARTICLES AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS
At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death of physics:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are eloquent quotations:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0486406768-0 :
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet! Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes, simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Clearly, the particle model of light finds its support in the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is also consistent with the third equation of Maxwell (Faraday's induction law) as implied at the beginning of Einstein's 1905 paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(The "customary view" Einstein refers to is the ether model of Maxwell that Maxwell himself abandoned in the end; the fact that the particle model of light naturally contradicts the ether model by no means implies that the particle model is inconsistent with the Faraday's induction law, although the mythology says otherwise.)
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Message from Phil Lawson (by email):
New Message on Physics
I would like to introduce a new topic
If you have macromedia flash pls check this address
http://www.newphysics.us/en1.swf
it is intended to show relatavistic sphere generated for 4 seconds after an event (e.g. an electron meeting a positron)
I have a static version of this also if you do not have flash swre
I have been working on this topic since 1962
EINSTEINIANS WILL UNDERSTAND EINSTEIN'S THEORIES
http://universe.nasa.gov/
"Astonishingly, all of these wild ideas are now known to be true. But now we must work toward the next step in our understanding. Einstein's legacy is incomplete - we do not understand the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of his theories."
Einsteinians will try to understand Einstein's theories by interpreting them in terms of Newton's particle model of light (that is, in terms of discontinuous structures confirmed by Einstein himself). Einstein has hinted at the final result:
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
WHY EINSTEIN'S CULT IS CRIMINAL
Consider the introduction of gravitational time dilation by Einstein's hypnotists:
www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation. Also, the speed of the light pulses is VARIABLE in the absence of a gravitational field as well and obeys the formula c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of the pulses relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the receiver (observer).
However Einstein's hypnotists do not discuss the variability of the speed of light when the discussion is dangerous. They discuss the variability when the discussion is not dangerous:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."
Finally, Einstein's hypnotists have destroyed the rationality of generations of scientists so that, in Einstein's zombie world, the idea of combining dangerous and non-dangerous discussions can never emerge. Zombies just learn by rote contradictory texts and then go fighting heretics.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
FATAL MISTAKE OF EINSTEINIANS
Einstein's criminal cult, like any similar organization, obeys strict rules imposed by the founder. Violation of these rules would be fatal. Here is one of them:
The zombie world should constantly be forced to deal with reciprocal time dilation and its immediate negation (I measure your clock to be SLOWER than mine and you measure mine to be SLOWER than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be FASTER than yours) until any remnants of human rationality disappear. However the expression "The clock at rest runs slow by a factor 1/gamma" is forbidden: any calculations based on this phrase would expose the idiocy of relativity and destroy the cult in the end.
For almost 100 years the rule has been obeyed but recently a careless hypnotist did produce the fatal phrase: see the solution to Problem 3 "Circular motion", (b), p. 19, in
www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf
Nothing can save Einstein's criminal cult now. Yet panic should be avoided: the zombie world is inert and relativity activists will have enough time to start another criminal business.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Lucy Haye of Autodynamicsuk.org sends this article titled "Superfluous System" to explain why, from the point of view of Autodynamics, the Lorentz Transformation as used in Einstein's Relativity, is wrong.
The derivation of the Lorentz transformation is simply logically and algebraically flawed as the initial axiom (the invariance of the speed of light) is modified in the course of the derivation (namely by rescaling the time and space units) such as to be able to apply the usual concept of 'speed' to light as well. See my page regarding the the Lorentz Transformation)) for more.
Thomas
This is a message from Dr Edward Henry Dowdye received by email:
Dear Fellow Researchers:
Since we last chatted I have confirmed my new findings. Following is a abstract:
Abstract
For decades now some very important fundament principles of mathematical Physics have been incorrectly applied to the theory of gravitational lensing or just simply ignored. This has lead to an erroneous understanding the effects the gravitation of point-like masses should have on rays of light as suggested by the light bending rule of General Relativity. At least two very important fundamental principles of mathematical Physics were hardly applied or not mentioned at all by the researchers of gravitational lensing, namely the principle of Gauss' law and the principle of optical reciprocity. The principle of Gauss' law here is the analog of the principle of Gauss' law of Electromagnetism, where a gaussian surface encloses an electric charge as opposed to a gravitating mass. The Gauss' law simply states that the flux of the gravitational field through the different surfaces enclosing the same mass is constant. That means that the enclosed point masses are the only sources of the field lines of gravitation. This together with the principle of reciprocity is direct proof that the observer does not have to be co-linearly aligned with the lens and the source in order to be able to observe an event of gravitational lensing as predicted by the light bending rule of General Relativity.
Historically, the only observable light bending effects on rays of light have been virtually those effects that are due to an indirect, not a direct interaction between the light rays and the gravitation. The thin plasma atmosphere of the sun represents such an indirect interaction between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars. There is convincing observational evidence from Astrophysics that a direct interaction between light and gravitation is yet to be observed. All indications show that the microlensing concept is merely a failed attempt to explain the lack of observation of macrolensing. Details: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
A paper on this subject has been published in the renowned refereed journal Astronomische Nachrichten, "Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity", Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, Issue 2, 2007, pp 186 -191
Your feedback and comments are welcome.
Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr.
The problem with Selleri is that he does not identify precisely where Einstein made a constructivist intervention in the formulation of the relativity of simultaneity. This is identified at the end of the paper below:
Ryskamp, John Henry,Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas(June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
Looks like I'm quite a few years behind all you fine folks, but I really do think you would LOVE the two sections on relativity stuffed into my statistical theorem. Even better if you can wade through the entire document. Don't miss the recent interferometer experiment! I enjoyed the discussion. Kudos to Mr. Valev, but I state that Mr. Doydye is WRONG "There is convincing observational evidence from Astrophysics that a direct interaction between light and gravitation is yet to be observed." Better take a GOOD look at that interferometer video, Dr. Doydye! A GOOD LOOK!
So... what's the deal with all the VIAGRA ads at the bottom? Is it assumed that physics dissidents need it? I don't, just in case anyone wants to know.
My bad about the Viagra ads. It's spam which slipped by but I just saw it and canceled...