**Article reference:**http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/challenging_einsteins_special.html

### Challenging Einstein's Special Relativity: Herbert Dingle - Science at the Crossroads

Einstein's theory of Relativity is supposedly so complicated that only a few exceptionally gifted minds can understand it at all, and we are asked to suspend disbelief at its logical inconsistencies and just go on our way minding our own business.

Discussions about the merits or dismerits of Relativity have raged on for decades, perhaps a century, without having come to a clear conclusion. A tight-knit cadre of relativists has been "in control" for most of that time and has been defending Relativity with more stubbornness than even Einstein himself, who apparently once said:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

*Umberto Bartocci*

Ironically, and perhaps quite fittingly, one of the most active scientists to keep the discussion alive and to solicit challenges to Relativity in the last two decades has been the Italian professor *Umberto Bartocci* who, until a few years ago, taught mathematics at the University of Perugia. He organized several 'dissident' conferences, some of which I attended with great pleasure. In 1999, after one of those conferences, Bartocci asked the participants to come forward with the best and most clear falsification of Einstein's Relativity. The responses are collected on his website: Cartesio-Episteme.

At the time, surprised and quite out of my depth over my friend's question, I said we must look not for mathematical contradictions but for inconsistencies with physical reality, for the obvious fallacy in the first postulates. I added that "[t]here is nothing in this universe which may not be understood by a person [with] a reasonably sharp mind and a minimum of preparation."

More recently, after I posted a paper by Thomas Phipps who challenges relativity using data from the global positioning system's clocks, Phipps made a suggestion - he said:

It is possible you might want to put on your website the text of Herbert Dingle's classic anti-relativity tract,Science at the Crossroads.This has been out of print and unobtainable for many years -- available only on a Russian website in garbled form. Just now, Professor Ian McCausland, a friend of Dingle's, has taken the trouble to edit it into more readable form, as a WORD file. It is about 160 pages long, so you may hesitate. I will forward Prof. McCausland's message with file and let you decide.In a second message, Phipps added: If ... you ... can accommodate the large (160 page) WORD file text on your website I think this would be a service to science. My impression is that Dingle was right.

**Who was Herbert Dingle?**

According to Wikipedia,

Herbert Dingle (1890 - 1978) was an English astronomer and President of the Royal Astronomical Society.He was a member of the British government eclipse expeditions of 1927 and 1932; and became Professor of Natural Philosophy, Imperial College in 1938, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University College London in 1946-1955 and President of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1951-1953. Appointed Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science in 1955, he died in 1978.

Originally a supporter of Einstein's work on the theory of relativity and an author of the textbook Relativity for All (1922), Dingle came to doubt its foundations after reading an account of the so-called twin paradox. According to this, a clock that moves relative to another will appear to run more slowly as judged by the stationary clock

and inversely.Dingle claimed that Einstein's results were inconsistent with those worked out using a "commonsense" method.

One of the respondents to Prof Bartocci's call - Al Kelly - (you can find his rather detailed response on Episteme) adds:

Dingle penned the Encyclopaedia Britannica statements on Relativity; he was that renowned. Reading many papers, you would think that he was an isolated crank. In my opinion, anyone who has not read and studied Dingle's book is not qualified to pontificate on this subject.

It appears that Dingle's challenge, although coming from an eminent authority and author of textbooks on relativity, was not given space, while his detractors, notably the astrophysicist Sir William H. McCrea, were allowed to have the last word in the public discussion at the time. That prompted Dingle to write his book which, rather than stimulating discussion, was provided in few copies and has since become practically unavailable, as pointed out by Phipps.

Well, the book was put in my lap and although it took some time to get to it, here it is - once more available.

(The files are PDF - 2.4 MegaBytes in total)

**Note:** This is not an official version of Professor Dingle's book, which was published in London by Martin Brian & O'Keeffe in 1972. It has been very carefully checked and is believed to be accurate, but the appendices are not included and the page numbers do not correspond to the page numbers of the printed book.

Science at the Crossroads revised 2015.pdf

Appendices to Science at the Crossroads

Should you have trouble with the PDF format as some readers have said, here is the book in Microsoft Word Format (.doc)

Science at the Crossroads revised 2015.doc

HERBERT DINGLE

*Professor Emeritus of History
And Philosophy of Science,
University of London*

For those of you who don't want to download the whole book but would just like to have an idea of the acrimony of the debate at the time and the importance this question had for Dingle, here is the preface:

- - -

**Science at the Crossroads**

**Preface**

This book was written during the first half of 1971. Before arrangements for its publication had been completed, however, an independent controversy sprang up in the Listener, in which reference was made to the correspondence in that journal which is discussed in the following pages (83-87). This seemed to afford a possibility of achieving the desired end without the necessity of revealing the much fuller story told here: accordingly I withheld the typescript and gave, in the Listener of 23 September 1971, a brief account of the sequel to the former controversy. The result was another long series of letters, extending from the issue of 30 September 1971 to that of 13 January 1972, which inspired, among other things, an article by Mr Bernard Levin in The Times of 21 December 1971, which itself led to a brief correspondence in The Times.

The general interest thus brought to light, as I know from my subsequent correspondence from various parts of the world, was great and widespread, but the one essential desideratum of the whole exercise -- plain evidence, through an answer to, or acceptance of, a very simple refutation of the immeasurably important special relativity theory, that the obligation to preserve strict integrity in science continues to be honoured -- was still not forthcoming. Physical research, both theoretical and practical, still proceeds as though special relativity were unquestioned. There remains, therefore, no alternative to publication of the facts here recorded.

It is impossible in a brief space satisfactorily to summarise the whole of this latest phase of the matter, nor is it necessary, for the journals concerned may be consulted by interested readers, and on the one vital point no progress is made; the criticism remains unanswered and unaccepted, and its implications are unchanged. It will, however, serve to authenticate this statement, and at the same time introduce the reader at once to the central source of the book, if I reproduce the final letters, in The Times of 8 and 26 January 1972, respectively -- the first from Professor R. A. Lyttleton, F.R.S., of St John's College, Cambridge, and the second my reply -- and simply add that Professor Lyttleton has not responded, either privately or publicly, to my appeal to him for the one brief statement that would settle the whole matter. Lyttleton wrote as follows:

My old friend Dr. Dingle seems at last to have found in Bernard Levin (article, December 21) a kindred spirit to champion him in his lone verbal onslaughts against what he regards as a certain pernicious claim of modern physics.In brief, what Dingle has steadfastly maintained these many years against all comers is this: That if Peter and Paul are identical twins, and Paul goes on a journey leaving Peter to stay at home, then when Paul returns he will still be exactly the same age as his brother.

The truth of this seems so self-evident as to be beyond need of discussion by any sane people. But the trouble is that it is false, and physical theory shows inescapably that Paul will arrive back having aged less than Peter. For ordinary everyday speeds the difference is negligibly small, and it rises to importance only when velocities begin to become comparable with that of light, but such speeds are now common in much of physics.

The kinematics and mechanics (of special relativity) that hold for high-speed motions had their inception in the inspired genius of Poincare (Henri) and Einstein and others of their day, and the suggestion that such men, never mind modern exponents of theoretical physics, do not know what they are talking about is on a par with claiming that Vardon and Taylor and Hagen knew nothing of golf. But this so-called 'clock paradox' (it is not really a paradox at all) is built for friend Dingle, since the man-in-the-street does not have to deal with relativistic particles such as mu-mesons, or the design of synchrotrons, and so along with Mr. Levin can remain absolutely certain that Dingle must be right wielding his prolix pen 'while words of learned, length and thundering sound, amaze the gazing rustics gathered round.'

Dr Dingle's attitude is of a golfing enthusiastic that has read the great masters, but finding himself unable to break 100 (never mind break 70) concludes it is they that must be wrong somewhere; and what is more, that it is their bounded duty to interrupt their careers to prove to his satisfaction that they are right.

If your energetic Bernard would spend a little time learning up this branch of physics, which is not really all that difficult, he can easily discover for himself who is right and who is wrong, but he will discover also that it is not possible to convince our dear Dingle, For e'en though vanquished, he can argue still,' -- and will!

My reply was this:

My old (in affection, not alas in wisdom) friend Professor Lyttleton (January 8) has got everything wrong -- even the point at issue. I have carefully avoided the 'clock', or 'twin', paradox (in which Paul, after space-travelling, rejoins Peter), knowing from experience that Paul's reversal of motion can be misused ad lib, to meet any need. In the present discussion Paul moves on, undeviating, into the intense inane.Suppose clocks A and B move along the same straight line at uniform speeds differing by 161,000 miles a second: we call A 'stationary' and B 'moving', but that is merely nominal. At the instant at which B passes A both read noon. Then, according to special relativity, at the instants when B reads 1 and 2 o'clock, A reads 2 and 4 o'clock respectively. Of course, A is not at B to allow a direct comparison, but Einstein's theory is based on a particular process for finding a clock-reading for a distant event, and it demands these values. Einstein himself made just this calculation, but using general symbols instead of these numerical values, and concluded that since B recorded a smaller interval than A between the same events, it was working more slowly.

But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B (still 'moving') for the readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A (still 'stationary') he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion: he did not do this, so missed the contradiction. I invite Ray to fault these calculations, or convince your 'gazing rustics' that each of two clocks can work faster than the other. I do hope he will not disappoint them.

Regarding the immeasurably less important clock paradox, Lyttleton is again wrong in saying that I have denied asymmetrical ageing for many years. Fifteen years ago, when I believed special relativity true, I indeed thought it impossible, but I soon discovered my error, and for more than 13 years have held the question open. Had we but world enough and time, or wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love (since I too like invoking the English, and even the Irish, poets), we could indeed make a direct test: as it is, we must await a valid determination of the true relation between the velocity of light and that of its source. Despite the mu-mesons and their kind, I think asymmetrical ageing extremely unlikely, but that is an opinion; the falsity of the special relativity theory (not necessarily of the relativity of motion) I regard as proved.

It is clear from this that, notwithstanding many years of reiteration of what my letter shows to be a simple, generally intelligible -- but, if valid, fatal -- criticism of the most fundamental theory of modern physics, the ultimate reaction, coming from an eminent mathematical physicist or astronomer, is simply a paraphrase of what this book will show to have been every other supposedly authoritative response during that long time -- namely, first an evasion of the point by its transformation into something different, for the refutation of which justification is claimed on grounds too abstruse for general presentation; and secondly, complete silence when the transformation is exposed and an answer to the genuine, easily understandable, criticism requested. The function of this book is to provide conclusive evidence of this, and so to enlighten the public on a matter of the most profound concern to its moral and physical welfare.

It remains to summarise the necessity for this exposure, which of course is elaborated in the following pages. This necessity is twofold. First, the facts show, I think beyond question, that the traditional proud claim of Science that it acknowledges the absolute authority of experience (i.e. observation and experiment) and reason over all theories, hypotheses, prejudices, expectations or probabilities, however apparently firmly established, can no longer be upheld. The devotion to truth at all costs has gradually given place -- largely unconsciously, I believe, but still undeniably -- to the blind pursuit of the superficially plausible; the direction towards the most seductive, in which advance has been easiest, has been taken without regard to preservation of contact with the base, which is the truth of experience and reason; the verdict of those authorities falls on deaf ears, that of the Vardons or Hagens of physics, to question which is automatically to place oneself in a class which Lyttleton's letter makes starkly clear, having now established itself as final; mathematics has been transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily to symbolise truths which are in fact) sheer impossibilities but are presented to the layman as discoveries) which, though they appear to him absurd, are nevertheless true because mathematical inventions, which he cannot understand require them. The situation is precisely equivalent to that in which the zoologist assured the astonished spectator of the giraffe that if he understood anatomy he would know that such a creature was impossible -- except that, in physical science, the layman usually believes what he is told and, unless he is enlightened in time, will be the victim of the consequences. This phenomenon, most evident in relation to special relativity, is now common in physical science, especially in cosmology, but its culminating point lay, I think, in the acceptance of special relativity, and it is with that alone that the present discussion is concerned. It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example -- in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism -- the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever). Unless scientists can be awakened to the situation into which they have lapsed, the future of science and civilisation is black indeed.

The second reason for the publication of this book is a practical one. Directly or indirectly -- at present chiefly the latter, though none the less inseparably -- special relativity is involved in all modern physical experiments, and these are known to be attended by such dangerous possibilities, should something go wrong with them, that the duty of ensuring as far as possible that this shall not happen is imperative. It is certain that, sooner or later, experiments based on false theories will have unexpected results, and these, in the experiments of the present day, may be harmless or incalculably disastrous. In these circumstances an inescapable obligation is laid on experimental physicists to subject their theories to the most stringent criticism. As this book will show, their general practice is to leave such criticism to mathematical theorists who either evade or ignore it, and the possible consequences are evident and unspeakably menacing. This alone would compel the publication of the facts here revealed.

Nothing, I think, remains to be said to enable the reader to form his own estimate of the story that follows, which he requires no special knowledge to enable him to do. My duty is to make it known; its significance is for him to judge.

April 1972

- - -

If this has piqued your interest, here once more the whole book for download:

Science at the Crossroads revised 2015.pdf

Appendices to Science at the Crossroads

HERBERT DINGLE

*Professor Emeritus of History
And Philosophy of Science,
University of London*

- - -

**See also: **

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."

And a recent paper by Franco Selleri of the University of Bari Physics Department(PDF file - 4.6 MB):

Are the two relativistic theories compatible?

"The 1905 formulation of the clock paradox [1] had a possible implication that surely Einstein did not like. The differential retardation is an absolute effect, as all observers agree, when the two clocks reunite, on the time marked e.g. by the clock moved with variable velocity. They disagree, however, on the numerical value of this variable velocity at any position of the clock in space. In relativity all inertial observers (forming an infinite set) are completely equivalent, so that, in a sense, one can say that the clock velocity assumes simultaneously all conceivable values. But a quantity having at the same time infinitely many values is totally undefined. In this way the presumed cause of the retardation (velocity) seems to vanish into nothingness. This is not physically reasonable, as obviously the cause of a real physical phenomenon must be concrete as well, in spite of the evasive description deduced from the theory. Therefore causality implies that velocity itself should be well defined, that is, relative to a physically active reference background which defines at the same time a privileged reference system."

**The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science (PDF)**

Moody -Eclipse_Data_From_1919.pdf

*By Richard Moody Jr.*

**Abstract:**

Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that the sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun's light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being "bent" around the sun.

In an effort to play the role of peacemaker and kingmaker, Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe in Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud as the greatest hoax of 20th and 21st Century science.

- - -

**Other articles on my sites, related to Einstein and Relativity: **

New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space

Space Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'

Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd

Relativity Fraud: The Complicity of Historians and Philosophers

Einstein's Contribution to Physics in Understanding Nature

Recovering the Lorentz Ether - Can Einstein's Relativity be Saved?

## Comments

February 23, 2007 10:25 PM| Posted by: Neil HambletonSepp, you have performed a wonderful service in making Dingle available for download. I have had an international booksearch active for 'Science at the Crossroads' for the last 9 months and drawn a total blank. It was uploaded to a BitTorrent website a few months ago but I have been unable to download it for some reason. It is a book I like to return to from time to time, and for many years my local library has obtained it for me on inter-library loan from a London borough. Before returning it earlier this month I copied this from the dust jacket:

"In an article in The Times, Mr Bernard Levin gave three reasons why as a layman, he took heed of Professor Dingle's views. They were:

(a) "That in any dispute between orthodox scientific theory and its challengers, orthodoxy has usually been wrong, and has usually defended wrongness with deplorable methods. Whether this is the case in the present instance I do not know, but my instinct is to feel that it is.

(b) 'Because professor Dingle couches his arguments in prose of beautiful lucidity, while his opponents tend to use language which would be incomprehensible even if I understood the subject under discussion.

(c) 'The strongest element in my feeling that all good men should come to the aid of Professor Dingle is the fact that I like to see a man who stands 'unus contra mundum'. For at least two years Professor Dingle has battled alone, or almost alone, for his belief that Einstein got his sums wrong".

Many, many thanks for giving me my very own copy of this remarkable book.

I was unaware that Dr Al Kelly recently died until his family kindly sent me a copy of his new book "Challenging Modern Physics" - "Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories" in which he brings together and enlarges on his earlier papers and propounds his theory of Universal Relativity. It is available in print and can also be downloaded.

Kindest regards, N.H.

February 24, 2007 2:54 AM| Posted by: Dr. Leif RongvedDear Sepp:

Einstein never rejected the possible presence of an eather. He felt that there must be something in “empty space”. In the paper entitled “The Pervasive expansion of the Universe”, the author deals with a very important aspect of an eather. Namely, if an eather fluid be present its fluid elements must recede from each other in accord with the Hubble law. Or one must assume that the distance, d(t) between any two fluid elements at time, t is given by d(t)= γ(t)d(0), where γ(t) = 1+t/т, т is the Hubble age, and d(0) is the distance at the present time, t=0. This expansion of the eather, called R, is the only one that satisfies the modern Copernican view that the recessional motion of the galaxies and the eather appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe.

In the paper one investigates consequences of this assumption when the eather is an ideal monatomic adiabatic fluid. For this fluid a transformation exists, in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations, which transforms any fluid motion, called M, superimposed on the stationary eather fluid to an initially identical fluid motion, called N, superimposed on R. The motion, N differs from M when t≠0 due to N’s nonlinear interactions with R, called expansion effects. The expansion effects turn out to be a pervasive Hubble law affecting all aspects of N motions. For example, all characteristic distances, volumes, and energies associated with the N motion must have respectively γ, γ3 and γ-2 as multiplying factors.

One shows that this fluid dynamic analysis provides irrefutable evidences in support of the thesis that all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe are N motions superimposed on R. The eather fluid is not the light eather proposed in the past. It is a very heavy background fluid with density of order equal to the nuclear density. The expansion effects are zero presently, t=0, and they change with time at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless, these seemingly minute expansion effects suggest major fundamental changes to physics and astronomy, resolve outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzles and irritated scientist for many years, and makes predictions far beyond present theories.

The paper unites Einstein, Newton, Euler, and Hubble into a complete unified theory of mathematical physics.

A very important finding in the paper is that identical atomic clocks remote from large gravitating bodies and with zero velocity relative to the contiguous expanding eather read the same time, τL throughout the universe. One denotes such atomic clocks as local atomic clocks and τL as local atomic time. The time, τL is independent of the relative recessional motions of local atomic clocks. The time, τ recorded by any atomic clocks depends only on the clocks velocity relative to the contiguous eather and the surrounding gravitational fields. The twin paradox and relativity principle, which have puzzled and irritated Dingle and many other scientists, are gone.

Moreover, τL is the independent time variable in the equations of motion of the special theory, and motions predicted are those relative to the undisturbed contiguous eather. The time, τL is analogous to Einstein’s notion of proper time, but τL is not a coordinate. Using this modified Einstein’s special theory one is confronted with the difficulty that our reference frame may move relative to the undisturbed eather and also that gravitational fields are present. Neglecting this motion and the gravitational field is going to affect the results obtained. This is very much like finding an inertial reference frame when using Newton’s laws.

Sincerely, Leif

www.drleifrongved.com

February 24, 2007 10:06 AM| Posted by: amrit sorli-space-time is just a math model

-material objects and particles move into gravity field that is a-temporal, means time does not run in the universe at all

-with clocks we measure duration of material change that run into a-temporal gravity field

-in the universe nothing is "after" and "before", we humans see irreversible stream of material change into a mind concept of space-time that is linear: it has present, past and future

-irreversible material change itself have no duration, we give them a sense of duration by comparing them with clocks

also clocks run into a-temporal gravity field

-speed of material chage (clock speed including) depends on the gravity force, stronger force, slower speed of material change

-speed of light is constant, invariant on gravity force

-strenght of gravity depends on density of gravity field, less field is dense, stronger is gravity

-density of gravity field depends on density of matter, density of gravity field is at min at the centre of stellar objects, at max far away from them

February 24, 2007 6:08 PM| Posted by: Phis LawsonPhil Lawson comments (by email):

Einstein's theory of Relativity is supposedly so complicated that only a few exceptionally gifted minds can understand it at all,

Actually if you use Newton's laws of motion and simply make the change in the model for distance and time to be dependant variables you get Einstein's relativity.

When time and space are independant as in the Newton model basic calculus works in its easiest case.

When s and t are dependant as in relativity the case is more complicated hence relativity.

S and T dependancy start to complicate things when ds/dt approaches that of SOL in a vacuum.

February 24, 2007 6:24 PM| Posted by: Jorge Guala-ValverdeA comment from Argentina (by email):

All right!!.

Please, see at the web-page: www.fjp.org.ar

Here are inclosed news on electrodynamics.

Best for all you,

Jorge Guala-Valverde

The President

Fundacion Julio Palacios.

February 25, 2007 4:50 PM| Posted by: Roger RydinSepp;

I worked my way through the entire Cartesio-Episteme, mainly to see what the discussion consisted of. While many valid points were made there by people I have met or heard about, the "proofs" seemed to consist mostly of word arguments and somewhat simplistic mathematics.

It would seem that the primary argument against the validity of special relativity is that it doesn't correspond to experiment! What I would like to see is a list of such experimental results along with the quantitative predictions given by special relativity, general relativity, alternate theories, engineering fixes, etc. A table of these results, including the percentage errors in each case, would go a long way in convincing people as to which approaches are valid, and which ones are wrong.

Of course, I have already convinced myself that the experimental data on the periodic distribution of galaxies in a spherical sense from an origin "near" Earth means that general relativity, right or wrong, does not apply at all to the general motion of the universe.

In this case, a general relativity theory for the motion of the universe came 20 years before any experimental data that might confirm it, and then received qualitative support from Hubble's law, Gamow's contention that there was a hot plasma phase that made the light elements, and Penzias and Wilson's discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background. This led to a scientific "consensus" almost 40 years ago that the Big Bang was valid.

All the new astronomical data like the galactic deep redshift pencil surveys and the Sloan survey, came more than 20 years later, but few people have analysed this data to see the major contradictions it poses to the assumptions of general relativity as applied to the Big Bang.

Anyway, we should start with experimental results, and find theories that explain these results, rather than start with mathematical theories, and then look for physical problems to apply them to.

Roger Rydin

Associate Professor Emeritus

University of Virginia

February 27, 2007 10:06 PM| Posted by: SeppThank you for this comment, Roger.

two things I came across recently, that may be interesting in this connection:

1) a series of articles whose author says he has examinined the mathematics of Dingle's challenge to SRT and finds that Dingle is right and his critics aren't:

Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

An Investigation of the First Refutation of Relativity - By Harry H. Ricker III

2) Franco Selleri recently sent a paper charging that the two Relativity theories may not be compatible with each other.

Are the two relativistic theories compatible?

February 28, 2007 12:44 PM| Posted by: Roger RydinTwo more comments from Roger Rydin (by email):

I am not into the math of these things. But Ron Hatch presented a paper at NPA a few years ago where he used a Selleri transform to correct his GPS clocks. I seem to recall that the GR correction was high and the SR correction was low, or vice versa. In other words, both were wrong and they didn't agree with one another!

Tom Van Flandern argues that the Equivalence Principle is incorrect. In the case of gravity, we are accelerated toward the Earth by g, which gives us weight, but we don't actually move. On the other hand, if we are truly accelerated by an equivalent amount g while in an elevator in deep space, we actually move and we acquire kinetic energy. We may not detect the difference, but there is a difference because the second case gives us both energy and momentum, while the first case does not.

March 10, 2007 4:05 PM| Posted by: Paramahamsa TewariTime dilation in Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is founded on a Misconception on the True Nature of Light

by Paramahamsa Tewari

The STR postulate on invariance of velocity of light in different frames of reference as measured by the observers in uniform relative motion should compel us to go deeper into the very origin and its true nature because the concept of a “ray” of light and its reflection from a mirror as used in STR is not fundamental enough as regards the structure of light. I believe there are several obscurities in explaining behavior of light through the prevalent concepts in contemporary physics that do not permit pinpointing flaws in relativity theory, explanation to photoelectric, time dilation etc.

A ray of light may be: successive luminous points continuously laid in a straight line, which may suit photon-model of light such that each point on the line marks the center of a photon; Or it can also be a radial line drawn from a source and cutting the wave fronts and wave tails of successive spherical shells of light produced from the source. The implications of these two models of light are to be studied in depth through the analysis of

(A): Fundamental nature of light.

(B): Reflection of wave pulses as well as photons from a stationary as well as moving mirror placed in their path

(C): In photoelectric effect, physical aspects of interaction of a photon with an orbital electron, absorption of light by the electron and its release and emission from the atomic bond that clearly explains photoelectric effect rather than leaving obscurities through only mathematical working.

(D): Analysis of time-dilation of STR with the nature of light that explains above complex issues.

In this article, for brevity, only A, B, and D have been analyzed.

A: True Nature of Light

Light in its most fundamental structure is identified to be the shell of light produced following annihilation of an electron and a positron, mainly because these particles have been shown through the space vortex structure of electron to be the only fundamental particles in nature. Fig.8.1 shows an electron and a positron undergoing electrical attraction through the velocity fields in their space vortices. (Coulomb’s equation on electrical attraction has been derived from the first principles elsewhere) This process superposes their spinning interfaces nullifying opposite spins and consequent collapse of the interfaces. Fig.8 shows space (mass less, continuous, nonmaterial fluid) flowing into the void during the time re / c and creates the first light-shell of wavelength equal to (re / c) c, that is electron radius re. This shell transmits out spherically at speed c (relative to space) with constant wave length re nullifying the structural fields (electrostatic and gravitational) of the annihilated particles throughout the universe. Within the first shell an inward acceleration field c2 / re is created along the wavelength (not shown in the figure) and this field too remains constant in all the subsequent shells as the first shell transmits out. To further clarify, at one instant during transmission only one light-shell exists and at each position a new shell is formed while the preceding one dies out. Transmission of light effect within the shell takes place at c relative to space as per postulate on constancy of transmission of field effects at c relative to fluid space. It has been shown in SVT that light produced through thermal radiation too has an inward acceleration field c2 / λ within the shell.

Light Reflection from a Moving Mirror

Suppose a reflecting mirror is moving at velocity v relative to space. Let a shell of light with a wavelength λ transmitting relative to space meet the mirror. At some instant t the wave front will meet the mirror and be reflected back. The wave tail will meet next at a later time. Thus the mirror ‘sees’ and reflects the light shell at two instants—not instantly, as perhaps commonly accepted. If the mirror is stationary in space, from the instant t when it meets the wave front, after a time λ / c required for light transmission across the shell, the wave tail will meet the mirror. But if the mirror is moving at v towards the shell, it will move closer to the wave tail by v (λ / c) and thus will reflect a shorter wavelength [λ – (v λ / c)]; and when moving away from the shell a longer wavelength [ λ + (v λ / c)] will be reflected by the mirror. In the Sagnac experiment (1913) a beam of light is split into two beams that, reflected by mirrors, travel in a closed path in opposite directions and on return are studied at the starting point through an interferometer. Rotation of the experimental apparatus with mirrors, light source, detector etc. has shown shifts in interference fringes proportional to the rotational velocity of the mirrors. As can be seen from the above, the difference in the reflected wavelengths by the mirrors approaching the light shell and receding from the shell is 2vλ / c, which is proportional to v. This proves existence of absolute space and transmission of light (wave nature) at a constant speed relative to it – similar to Sagnac’s conclusion on the existence of ether.

Light does not carry Momentum of the Source

Motion of an electron relative to space shifts its field-structure at speed c, restoring the distribution pattern of the fields at each point. This way, the electron in motion relative to space carries its field structure without any change in the field strengths when stability is reached. If an electron and a positron moving relative to space undergo annihilation, then the particles lose their local structure, lose mass and charge and the point of annihilation gets fixed in space instantly. The field structure of the annihilated particles survives but will no more be shifting, while the light shell formed around the point of annihilation will be continuing its transmission at speed c relative to space. In other words, light shell produced due to annihilation does not carry momentum of the electron and positron that got annihilated.

Time Dilation

The article “The Clock paradox” (J. Bronowski, Scientific American, February 1963, Vol. 208, No.2, pp 134-144) supporting STR’s time-dilation has a fallacy that persists on the true nature of light and shows why time dilation is an erroneous conclusion from STR.

Fig. 1 is drawn basically similar in essence to the diagram in the referred article. It shows a platform in uniform motion relative to space with two observers A and B on it and another observer C standing on the ground. The relativist’s view is interpreted as: “if the observer, A, lights a match stick creating a flash, the observer B sitting opposite to him will think that the flash has directly come to him along the route PQ, whereas the observer C will see the path along PQ1. This is because by the time the flash has reached C, the platform has reached to a new location P1 Q1 R1 S1. The path of the flash does not look the same to the two observers B and C. Since the flash is moving with A, it seems to C taking a longer path, and if the speed of light is to remain the same, the longer path must seem to take longer time: time must pass faster for C”. There is a misconception on the nature of light in the above statement that “the flash is moving with A”. If instead of the flash of light a ball is thrown towards B it will carry momentum from A and can be supposed to move with A, but light does not carry momentum of its source as shown above.

To clarify further, let the observer A have a positron and an electron moving with him and let these particles annihilate at position P at the instant when the platform is in position P Q R S. Following annihilation, the point of annihilation will get fixed in space and so also shifting of the field structure of the particles will come to halt. Since the observer B is moving relative to space to his right, he will see the annihilation point (stationary relative to space) shifting to his left (towards the left of P1) till he reaches Q1 and meets the shell of light coming from the annihilation point P having taken the route PQ1. The stationary observer C also sees the light shell moving along the route PQ1. Further, both B and C meet the flash at the same instant. Here is the proof that time dilation as well as simultaneity principles are founded on an erroneous concept of light.

March 24, 2007 8:17 AM| Posted by: Nick OrbeckIn light of modern developments, I find it almost impossible to believe that real scientists continue to accept special relativity.

At least I wish they would recognize that to speak of the velocity of light coherently, you must specify not just the event of emission, and the event of absorption, but also the frame of reference in which the measurement of velocity takes place.

Galileo pointed out that velocity is a relation between TWO material objects.

Under S.R. velocity becomes a relation between THREE material objects, the source, the absorber, and the observing frame of reference.

Much confusion could be avoided if the distinction between the absorber and the observer were explicitly recognized.

April 2, 2007 9:30 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevHOW TO PROVE EINSTEIN WRONG

If one is really interested in verifying Einstein's theory, one could start from the following text written by a fashionable Einsteinian:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Tom Roberts: "If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame.....The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector...."

What is the value of k and how is it related to the frequency variation? Judging from what another fashionable Einsteinian has admitted, the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the value k=1 is correct:

John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

But the problem is more complicated. If there had been more honesty in the relativity cult, the experiment of Michelson-Morley would have led to two competing interpretations:

1. AS FAR AS THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONCERNED, Newton's particle model of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=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. That is what the emission theory says; no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) can be introduced.

2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are OBLIGATORY - without them the falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light (c'=c) would be obvious.

The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second was adopted in 1905. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light (c'=c+v), thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the gravitational frequency variation factor), and at the same time conserved the false principle of constancy of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the rationality of generations of scientists (see Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity" for more detail).

Einstein reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light in 1911 when he showed that the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence principle as shown in

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation and you obtain c'=c+v. For that reason relativists do not like Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and often declare it wrong, although in 1960 Pound and Rebka confirmed it implicitly by measuring a frequency variation

f' = f(1 + V/c^2)

As for the Doppler effect, it would be difficult for relativists to claim that, although the frequency variation measured by Pound and Rebka confirmed the principle of variability of the speed of light c'=c+v, the frequency variation in the slightly different (no acceleration) Doppler situation would be consistent with the false principle of constancy of the speed of light c'=c.

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

April 7, 2007 10:42 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevWHEN EINSTEIN REALIZED HE WAS WRONG

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."

Note that the fact that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD has made Lee Smolin conclude that SPECIAL, not general, relativity is wrong. That is what Einstein discovered in 1907 and what a small number of clever relativists have known since then. All other relativists have been hypnotized by Einstein's camouflage in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity".

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

April 18, 2007 4:14 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevGRAVITY, SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE SALVATION OF RELATIVITY

Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential and, if yes, can it become greater than c=299792km/s? Clever relativists would answer yes and then again yes but then would save Einstein's theory by declaring that, for an INERTIAL observer, the speed of light is always c=299792km/s (not so clever relativists would save Einstein's theory by answering anything and then again anything). The solution to the following problem could clarify the situation:

A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c' will the observer measure?

In 1911 Einstein offered the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential difference between the light source and the observer. Clearly, Einstein's 1911 equation is a direct solution to the problem but this solution is extremely dangerous for Einstein's theory because the observer is INERTIAL. The alternative solution is c'=c but that is even more dangerous. So in the end Einsteinians would only be able to save Einstein's theory if they manage to avoid this problem forever. At least they should never choose explicitly between c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c.

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

April 28, 2007 6:14 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevTWO MYTHS ABOUT THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE OF EINSTEIN

In his 1905 paper Einstein clearly showed that both Faraday's induction law and "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium" lead to the principle of relativity (the first postulate) whereas the second postulate which is "apparently irreconcilable with the former" is introduced SEPARATELY:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "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.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Then the minds of relativists were reprogrammed and now they believe that Einstein's arguments led to the second postulate, Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Yet a clever relativist dispersed the myth about "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium":

John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Of course, in the world of Einstein nobody cares about dispersal of myths. Some day another clever relativist will disperse, in the same way, the myth about Faraday's induction law. Nobody will care again.

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

April 29, 2007 6:50 PM| Posted by: Phil LawsonPhil Lawson comments by email:

Misuse of Calculus in Special Relativity

I believe use of a non symmetrical 4d spacetime in SR may give a misperception of spacetime in general

Derivative and integral calculus is based on Fluxions, a system derived by Newton in order to devise a set of laws to define his Natural Philosophy (Physics).

Derivative calculus depended on the ability to define any point on a curve by taking the tangent to the curve at that point and treating it as a straight line thus creating an exact area under the curve at each point.

Integral calculus enabled the area under the curve to be examined in a precise way by integrating the series of points in order to calculate the total area under a curve as if it were a rectangular shape in which the length and breadth were orthogonal (at 90 degrees to each other), making the area L times B an exact amount which is easy to calculate.

When Newton used ds/dt to define speed he assumed that s and t were independent quantities (orthogonal) for any geometric problem. He was not considering space and time in an electro-magnetic (EM) context as defined by Faraday and Maxwell and used to define light by AE (Einstein) and its speed in a vacuum (C) in free space (flat space when including gravity in the calculation).

AE used a 4d model for spacetime - three orthogonal vectors for space and one undefined vector for time (scalar).

In order to treat spacetime as a derivative of space and time, s and t must be orthogonal (either one dimension for space and one for time or three for space and three for time).

In the 1d case ds/dt automatically treats space and time as independent quantities.

In the 3s 3t system it is possible to remove the derivative problem by selecting the space and time coordinates to be orthogonal.

Using the vector produced by drawing a line from the origin (0) to a point at (x1,x2,x3,t1,t2,t3) of course this redefines the origin to be (0,0,0,0,0,0).

Derivative calculus works fine for the case where ds/dt is actually ds1/dt2 or ds1/dt3 in which ds1 is orthogonal to the plane t2xt3.

The derivative case breaks down when trying to use ds1/dt1 because they have a one to one dependence and cannot be used to define a line with a variable slope like dy/dx.

dx1/dt1 is the same as saying dx/dx which is of course one dx/dx=1 .

Although magnetic and electric vectors can always be orthogonal in free space when acting as a wave in a spacetime continuum, the same is not true for the vectors of space and time which are independent of their magnetic and electric vectors, which are defined by the permeability and permittivity of the spacetime continuum giving space a characteristic impedance of 120 times pi ohms (approx 377 ohms).

Phil Lawson

April 29, 2007 7:06 PM| Posted by: SeppMy response to Phil Lawson:

Thank you for sharing those thoughts on the use and definition of spacetime in special relativity.

More and more, I am having my nose pushed into the problem of "time" and it appears that - as solid as our image of time may be - the thing may not even have any real existence. Time, after all, is just our idea describing what we see as successive changes in physical universe. So we keep pictures and records of what happened, and call it "the past" or past time. We imagine future situations or events and call that "the future" or future time. But both the past and the future exist only in our imagination or in our memory. The only thing that has real existence is the present moment of time, as and when we witness it, and all that is made up of is matter existing in space.

Some say that the universe is a-temporal.

How ever that may be, relativity probably pointed us in the wrong direction by linking time and space into a glorious fusion we've come to call spacetime.

In any case, your thoughts fit well with this article and I have appended them as a comment for others to consider as well.

May 7, 2007 7:48 PM| Posted by: Phil LawsonPhil Lawson again (by email):

Please forgive my pushing a belief which belies common sense even more than the merging of space and time in SR

Accepted:

Logically Newton assumed that space and time were independent for the purpose of studying velocity and acceleration (his use of calculus required this)

AE described a model in which three axes for space x,y,z gave rise to a single vector for space which could be acted upon by one scalar for time to give velocity and acceleration (x,y,z,t) giving a four set for spacetime

Effectively the derivatives of space and time would thus always maintain independence by only treating time as a vector which would always be orthogonal (90deg) to the space vector needed to use derivative calculus for speed and acceleration. Making time dependant on space So AE adopted this model in which he treated the time scalar as a fourth dimension (vector) to be used only at a fixed relationship to that of the space vector.

The AE model works fine for EM waves in the space which can carry them (outside the atomic nucleus)

Suggested:

I would like to suggest that a (more general) symmetrical model be considered, having six dimensions, three space and three time (x1,x2,x3,t1,t2,t3) in which t2 and t3 = 0 for the EM spacetime outside the nuclear region where (x1,x2,x3,t) give the best working model as in SR and GR.

The quark three set in stable matter (protons and neutrons) may use the more general symmetry of the 6d model. The proton is the most stable u,u,d quark three set The neutron (u,d,d three set) stability is subject to an inverse relationship between time and nuclear mass.

If the quarks were given separate time vectors say qt1,qt2,qt3 and a scalar for space then a 4d model say (x,t1,t2,t3) could be considered inside the nuclear domain. This also fits a model used by Dr Kiril Chukanov. (A Bulgarian researcher now living in Utah)

I would like to consider suggestions as to why the u,u,d three set seems more stable than the u,d,d neutron set. And why the time element has a statistically repeatable instability when the neutrons have a larger grouping.

Conclusions:

The Standard Model and its quark interactions might benefit from a more general (6d) spacetime model especially when considering the weak force and its relation to neutron/proton flavor changes when acted upon by the weak force and its time connection.

The symmetry of the 6d spacetime model should not be ignored while striving for super-symmetry.

Phil

May 10, 2007 8:54 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevTHE RELATIVITY FRAUD: SIMPLE AND MONUMENTAL

There is an elementary equation in physics:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

According to the equation, if the frequency varies, this could be due to a variation of either the speed of light or the wavelength. The frequency does vary and clever relativists have always known that the frequency variation is due to a variation of the speed of light. However they have also known that this variability of the speed of light is fatal not only for the theory of relativity but also for the whole modern physics. On the other hand, the world (not only clever relativists) has always known that Einstein's relativity is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, not variable. How then could the collapse of modern physics be avoided?

Through destruction of rationality in science. If you manage to destroy it, scientists would accept anything: that the wavelength rather than the speed of light varies, that the speed of light does indeed vary but not locally, that the problem of the variability of the speed of light disappeared when Einstein created his general relativity, that the speed of light is variable in general relativity but constant in special relativity, that the frequency variation is due to gravitational time dilation, not to the variation of the speed of light, etc. etc. There seems to be no absurd explanation that relativity hypnotists have not contrived and taught. The destruction of rationality in science is irreversible.

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

May 11, 2007 5:52 PM| Posted by: nigel cookPentcho Valev,

The wave axiom you quote,

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength),

is indeed the solution to the problem. Light is transverse, which means that the oscillation occurs entirely at right angles to the direction of the line of propagation of light.

This is the opposite of the usual textbook picture, which confuses electric and magnetic field strengths for transverse directions.

Maxwell has the same diagram and error in his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism 3rd ed.

Maxwell plots, as the modern books dealing with classical light theory do, the E and B field strengths as in such a way that they appear to be oscillations in directions y and z (with direction x is the direction of propagation of the light wave).

It's like plotting a graph of velocity of a bike on the y axis versus distance travelled on the x axis, and then confusing the resulting graph for a plot of the height versus length of the bike.

See the illustration of the light photon problem on my blog post.

What happens when you get a redshift or a frequency change in light is a change in the speed of light, because although the actual electromagnetic phenomena occur in a transverse direction, the oscillations in time are longitudinal changes in field strength along the propagation axis of the photon. You can tell this from radio work because the length of the antenna (which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the radio waves, for maximum efficiency) is not actually a limit on the wavelengths you can transmit and receive:

you can transmit any wavelength you like provided you can get a resonance in the antenna by adding a suitable loading coil at the base of the antenna.

Think of a simple AM radio signal, where the amplitude of electric field of the radio wave represents the amplitude of the sound wave picked up and amplified from the microphone.

If you were to move away from the transmitter, the sound you receive via radio will be slowed down as the frequency shifts, simply because the peaks in the radio wave electric field are being received less rapidly because you are moving away. Thus, radio waves do change speed relative to the observer whenever you are moving.

However, special relativity is correct because from an observer's reference frame, you can't detect any change in light speed. Your time dilation due to your motion will mean that any experiment you do to detect the slowing of the radio waves, won't reveal a thing.

Special relativity works because the contraction of distance in the direction of motion, and the slowing of time, cancel out effects due to changes in c; therefore, as Einstein claimed, it is correct that when you measure the velocity of light you always get the same value, regardless of motion.

Dingle's argument is that two clocks moved apart can't each slow down relative to the other.

There's a refutation of Dingle's argument at www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm which argues:

"In a nutshell, Dingle considers two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x',t' with a relative velocity of v, and then considers the partial derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x, and the partial derivative of t with respect to t' at constant x’. He notes that these partials are equal, and declares this to be logically inconsistent for any v other than 0. Needless to say, Dingle’s “reasoning” is incorrect, because partial derivatives cannot be algebraically inverted."

However, this translation of Dingle's argument into mathematics is totally defective because as Dingle himself writes in chapter 1 of his book:

"Suppose we have a cubical vessel whose volume is 8 cubic feet, and we wish to find the length of one of its edges ... We let x be the required length, and all we have to do is solve the equation x^3 = 8. But this equation has three solutions, viz 2, [(-3)^{1/2}]-1, -[(-3)^{1/2}]+1, all having the same mathematical validity. But we know that the only one of these solutions that can possibly correspond to the reading of a measuring rod is 2 ..."

May 12, 2007 7:53 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevNigel wrote:

"What happens when you get a redshift or a frequency change in light is a change in the speed of light....Special relativity works because the contraction of distance in the direction of motion, and the slowing of time, cancel out effects due to changes in c; therefore, as Einstein claimed, it is correct that when you measure the velocity of light you always get the same value, regardless of motion."

This is contradictory, Nigel. Length contraction and time dilation are COROLLARIES of the principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light. If there is "a change in the speed of light", as you claim, there can be no length contraction and time dilation.

I would agree with you that time dilation, although almost obviously absurd, technically cannot be refuted if one considers two inertial frames, as Dingle does. However time dilation CAN be refuted if one uses the rotating disc experiment offered by Einstein in Chapter 23 in his "Relativity". True, the clock on the periphery of the rotating disc is not inertial but if one increases the diameter of the disc and keeps the linear speed of the periphery constant the clock does become inertial. Refutation of relativity is easy; the problem is that relativity is a global money-spinner and therefore people simply do not need that refutation.

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

May 12, 2007 6:40 PM| Posted by: nigel cookPentcho Valev

Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment, which disproves your statement:

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion [through the absolute reference frame such as the gravitational field or spacetime fabric of general relativity] because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’

– Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

So the speed of light indeed changes, but you simply can't detect that because the instrument shrinks in the direction of motion, so the light travelling along two paths always takes the same time, irrespective of velocity. Moving to Dingle, he actually states in the Introduction to his 1972 book Science at the Crossroads (Martin Brian & O’Keefe, London) concerning special (restricted) relativity:

‘... you have two exactly similar clocks ... one is moving ... they must work at different rates ... But the [SR] theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock ... moves. The question therefore arises ... which clock works the more slowly?’

Dingle emphasises he is asking a question, which isn't answered by anybody. The answer can't be answered.

Einstein's special (restricted) relativity requires you to choose which clock is moving and which is in a state of rest, and it denies that either is really in absolute motion at all. Mathematically, it works in reproducing the correct physical laws of length contraction, time-dilation, mass-energy equivalence, etc., but physically it doesn't work because it's vague.

I'm afraid that your comments about "relativity" where you don't discriminate between special (restricted) and general, or between guesswork false principles of special relativity and the working, well checked, experimentally verified equations which were obtained in many cases before Einstein's first paper was published, provides lots of straw-man material for mainstream religious zealots to attack. By making vague attacks on a vague theory, you don't help anyone.

The real reasons why "special (restricted) relativity" survives attack is that it is falsely dismissed, and the people defending it don't understand what part of it precisely is false, what to replace it with, etc.

I do however like the big you quoted from Professor Smolin on another blog, http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm called ‘Einstein’s Legacy – Where are the “Einsteinians?”’ where Smolin writes:

‘Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10 years, as the world of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely path away from it.’

The key thing is that, as Einstein writes:

‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. ... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916. (Italics are Einstein's own.)

The reason why Einstein didn't even more loudly dismiss special relativity was that it would have been like shooting himself in the foot.

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23.

The above quote is an accurate summary of the lecture 'Ether and Relativity' given by Einstein at Leyden University in 1920 and published in the book.

Mainstream bigots claim it is 'out of context', but as Smolin points out (quotation from Smolin above), they don't understand general relativity, which is background independent, i.e., it applies to all frames of reference, INCLUDING, heretically, absolute frames of reference such as gravitational coordinate systems, accelerations from rotatary motion, etc.

Insistence on SR is invalid. GR is the correct theory, and, being background independent, it can apply to absolute frames of reference.

Example of such a frame:

‘U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 kms.’ – R. A. Muller, University of California, ‘The cosmic background radiation and the new aether drift’, Scientific American, vol. 238, May 1978, p. 64-74.

The enemies of science are not just a handful of bigots, but the general public. They have been brainwashed by nonsense, and when the facts are published they ignore them as anomalies or whatever.

In particular, most of the people trying to debunk SR religion don't bother to get their facts straight.

I've put more detailed comments about the Dingle controversy at http://quantumfieldtheory.org/Dingle.pdf

May 12, 2007 8:11 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevNigel wrote: "Pentcho Valev Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment, which disproves your statement: ‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion [through the absolute reference frame such as the gravitational field or spacetime fabric of general relativity] because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152. So the speed of light indeed changes, but you simply can't detect that because the instrument shrinks in the direction of motion..."

I have already told you this is contradictory - length contraction is a COROLLARY of the principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light. Eddington's quotation can be paraphrased in the following way: "The speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the light source); therefore there is length contraction and the effect looked for is exactly compensated by this length contraction." In other words, the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with a constant speed of light IN THE PRESENCE OF MIRACLES - length contraction, time dilation etc. In the absence of miracles the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with a VARIABLE speed of light:

John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

May 24, 2007 8:09 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevDIVINE 1911 EINSTEIN

By introducing his false principle of constancy of the speed of light in 1905 Einstein started a science of miracles that displaced the science of logic and made the decline of our civilization irreversible. In the first half of the twentieth century people were particularly eager to deify great terminators and Einstein made no exception:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Yet in 1907-1912, for some unknown reason, Einstein was trying to restore the true principle of variability of the speed of light: in the presence of a gravitational field the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential; in the absence of a gravitational field the speed of light varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In 1911 Einstein even quantified the true principle of variability of the speed of light: c'=c(1+V/c^2), where c is the (variable) speed of light and V is the gravitational potential. So, although Einstein's deification cannot be abrogated (once a god, always a god), the year 1911 could still be explicitly referred to in worships. The hymn "Divine Einstein" could become "Divine 1911 Einstein":

No-one’s as dee-vine as 1911 Albert Einstein

Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!

He explained the photo-electric effect,

And launched quantum physics with his intellect!

His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --

He should have been given four!

No-one’s as dee-vine as 1911 Albert Einstein,

Professor with brains galore!

No-one could outshine 1911 Professor Einstein --

Egad, could that guy derive!

He gave us special relativity,

That’s always made him a 1911 hero to me!

Brownian motion, my true devotion,

He mastered back in aught-five!

No-one’s as dee-vine as 1911 Albert Einstein,

Professor in overdrive!

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

May 24, 2007 2:30 PM| Posted by: nigel cook" In 1911 Einstein even quantified the true principle of variability of the speed of light: c'=c(1+V/c^2), where c is the (variable) speed of light and V is the gravitational potential." - Pentcho Valev

You have this formula wrong. Einstein's 1911 paper uses the symbol v for frequency, hence something like v'= v(1+V/c^2). You've changed v to c.

Light velocity is empirically found to be constant when measured. The length contraction of material in the direction of its motion has experimental evidence from the Michelson-Morley experiment. Your assertion that the evidence for a constant velocity of light is a "principle" and that the length contraction is a "miracle" isn't useful.

May 24, 2007 5:25 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevNigel wrote: "You have this formula wrong. Einstein's 1911 paper uses the symbol v for frequency, hence something like v'= v(1+V/c^2). You've changed v to c."

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....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 / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

Pentcho Valev

pvalev@yahoo.com

June 6, 2007 10:04 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevTHE OTHER EINSTEIN

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252003/518.pdf

"In the second essay in this part entitled ‘The other Einstein: Einstein contra field theory’, Stachel portrays Einstein, the author of the space–time continuum field theory, as one who questions the fundamental significance of space–time continuum itself. Stachel ends this section with the last published words of Einstein, ‘one can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory’. Did this other Einstein have the last word?"

The other Einstein knew that the speed of discontinuous particles of light, photons, varied with the gravitational potential (see Chapter 22 in his "Relativity"). He had certainly applied the equivalence principle and obtained that, since the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, it also varies with the relative speed of the light source and the observer. And the other Einstein knew what that meant:

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."

Einstein again: "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

August 19, 2008 4:29 PM| Posted by: socratusSRT.

==========================..

It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,

(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).

Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.

Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,

said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.

“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT

using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"

- said Kaluza in 1921.

This theory was tested and found insufficient.

"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,

8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.

But the doubts still remain.

"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.

We must create more complex D spaces".

And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects

to solve this problem.

Glory to these mathematicians !!!!

But……….

But there is one problem.

To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.

It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.

And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily

(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).

The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:

"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.

With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"

To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:

"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."

The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.

Where are our brains?

===============.

The SRT is a real theory.

But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.

There isn't any proof of its existence.

And if we mix these two theories then we are

surprised with its paradox.

What does the man usually do in such situation?

It is clear, he must understand

what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.

But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,

4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”

Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose

that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space

in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.

Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.

And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2

how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?

And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space

( 4-D positive Minkowski space )

how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?

In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski

space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.

The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real

interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that

a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.

====== =========

If I were a king, I would publish a law:

every mathematician who takes part in the creation

of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal

"To the winner over common sense".

Why?

Because they have won us over using the

absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.

==============..

I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.

I think this space is Vacuum.

Why?

1. “ Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.

2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity

but negative parameter : T= - 273.

3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,

which are joined together absolutely .

4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving

light quanta in Vacuum.

5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory

and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.

6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together

then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.

====== ======

P.S.

Sorry.

I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".

So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"

…………..or to " the God "......................

Then ...............

The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only

big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore

we see background radiation T=2,7K now."

And religious man will say: " The God exists.

He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.

For example.

The action, when the God compresses all Universe

into his palm, we have named " a singular point".

And action, when the God opens his palm,

we have named the "Big Bang".

I don’t know who is right.

But I came to conclusion:

" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,

I will never gather my harvest . "

======= ======..

If mathematician makes a small mistake in the

beginning of his calculations then after some

operations it grows into a big one.

And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )

the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,

then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………

………………………..

……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years

but the result will be the same - paradoxical.

=============…

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

http://www.socratus.com

http://www.wbabin.net/

April 7, 2010 10:45 PM| Posted by: PhilThe only reason that you call the Special theory of relativity "Einstein's" is because the media have deified Einstein---who in 1905 presented as his own the work of others.

Einstein had nothing to do with Special Relativity which was originated by Lorentz, Poincare, Michaelson-Morley and others. All Einstein (and his wife) did was write a Popular Science magazin article describing relativity---and the American deified him.

You are not a scientist so you do not know what I am writing about---so I recommend that you read "Einstein:The Incorrigiable Plagerist" and "anticipations of Einstein" both by Christopher Bjerknes. Bjerknes uses hundreds of references by famous scientists who have been aware of Einsteins' fraud.Bjerknes does not ask you to believe "him"---just read the references and, perhaps, study some physics yourself. Cheers.

November 21, 2010 7:36 PM| Posted by: Le Van CuongDuring a century, from 1905 to 2010, we have been confused by Einstein's concept of the light velocity being constant in an empty space or absolute vacuum. In fact, there is not empty space or absolute vacuum and the light velocity changes as space and time change. A proof for this is in: http://www.wbabin.net/feast/cuong27.pdf . Please you read it to understand what I say.

August 7, 2014 6:09 PM| Posted by: Bill GeistI put a list of references here which challange Einsteinian relativity and suggest the aether exists.

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm