Ripping Apart Einstein

Jason Wolfe

The only reason the laws of physics even work is because they are imprinted upon spirit. Same with the physics constants.

[deleted]

Pentcho,

Einstein's relativity goes back to H. Poincaré's understanding of relativity.

Poincaré called the "impossibility of demonstrating an experimental evidence for the absolute motion of the Earth" a general law of nature: "the Postulate of Relativity".

Some authors argue that Einstein's SR could be better characterized as theory of invariance which goes back to a guess by Lorentz.

What about the experiments by Michelson 1881 without and 1887 with Morley, they did contradict to the assumed by Maxwell aether wind relative to Earth but not to Maxwell's relation c^2=1/(my_0 eps_0) with my_0 and eps_0 constant.

I am not aware of an emission theory that describes how the mass of a particle depends on its velocity of motion in space as actually measured.

May I ask you to comment on the opinion of Kuratowski's Ghost?

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

The statement:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO "

is fatal for special relativity. Einsteinians prefer the antithesis:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at the same speed: v'=v "

The problem is that the frequency shift, f'=(v+vO)/(lambda), cannot be derived from the antithesis, v'=v. Clearly the antithesis is false and Redner's statement:

" Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO "

is true. Special relativity is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

On the "impossibility of demonstrating an experimental evidence for the absolute motion of the Earth"

What do you make of the 380km/s absolute motion of the earth relative to the otherwise smooth cosmic microwave background as evidenced by a Doppler blueshift and a redshift in the direction of the Leo constellation?

First this contradicts the Poincaré's assertion you mentioned. Second it also contradicts the SR postulate that "the motion of the earth cannot be detected from electromagnetic phenomena".

What is Kuratowski's Ghost?

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 10:08 GMT

"If you know where Julian Barbour is, please ask him:

- What is an instant?

- Does it have a number of seconds or is it of zero duration?

- Can any activity occur during the duration of an instant?

- If nothing can happen during the instant, how can the 'the positions of objects relative to each other in one instant affect the position of objects in the next instant?

And if you know the answers, you can tell us."

These questions, of course, are at the root of Zeno's paradox. How can anything move in the infinitely divisible void of space if time consists of infinitely divisible instants of frozen action?

However, there actually is no meaning to the idea of a frozen instant of time. Objects undergo continuous matter exchange with other matter objects throughout time and so there is no frozen moment of time.

Our minds use a convenient fiction that there is an absolute universe of objects that are somehow frozen in time and space and that infinitesimal forces and impulses come along that then result in changes in those objects. This intuition of action serves us very well for most predictions of action, especially gravity action of macroscopic objects.

However, the reality is that all objects in the universe are always in fundamental matter exchanges with all other objects and those matter exchanges define what we call moments differently for each object as action.

We can of course imagine a frozen moment of time because that is how our minds imagine objects in Cartesian space. How long is the human moment of thought?However, this projection of objects into space is just a convenient way for our minds to organize the object changes the complexity of sensation and therefore to help us predict object actions. The reality of object existence and action involves continuous exchange of matter as moments with other objects. This continuous change is what defines both objects that we imagine are and are not changing in time.

So time alone does not define action, it takes the integration of matter over time together to define action. Likewise action alone does not define time, it takes both action and matter moments to define time as a ratio. It is the three axioms of matter, time, and action that define a universe where any two axioms necessarily define the third.

There is a universal time defined by the fundamental action of the universe as an object, but we use a definition of time defined by the action of objects that we call clocks, either an atomic clock or some other convenient object, and just presume that that time is the same time as universe time.

Pentcho Valev

Why Einstein Proposed His Second Postulate

Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

Logical necessity? Yes. Einstein needed the false constancy of the speed of light as a premise in order to procrusteanize time and become famous:

John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

It amounts to rewriting history for authors to claim that, "at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity". Such distortions of history, thanks to the information age and the internet must no longer be tolerated in science. When lies are repeated constantly they tend to take on the semblance of truth. Einstein's 1905 paper is now available for all to read. In that paper, he said, "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium". Those unsuccessful attempts were the experiments of Michelson and Morley carried out before 1905.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

"Introduction to Special Relativity" is a famous textbook written by James H. Smith in 1965, Akinbo. And what he says is true - the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the principle of relativity, not the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, Pentcho.

Okay, Pentcho I get what you mean. All the same Einstein certainly knew of the Michelson-Morley experiment before 1905. That experiment is not one any body would have trouble recalling.

We have gone this road before but I cant help asking what you think of the results of Sagnac's experiment where the rotation of the source and observer on a disk results in earlier and later arrival times depending on direction of rotation. This appears to conflict with the Michelson-Morley results, which after all was also conducted on a rotating and orbiting disk called Earth.

Akinbo

Steve, let me reply here. From your post, "there actually is no meaning to the idea of a frozen instant of time" and it is only in the mind according to you.

If objects do not undergo matter exchange, is there time? Is there any sense in saying two objects did not have any matter exchange for the past 5 minutes?

When you say, "There is a universal time defined by the fundamental action of the universe as an object", what fundamental action are you talking about? Can the universe by definition exchange anything with another object?

In summary, your proposal does not succeed in doing that which it is designed for which is to kill the 'instant' and wish Zeno's paradox away.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

"Okay, Pentcho I get what you mean. All the same Einstein certainly knew of the Michelson-Morley experiment before 1905."

Of course he did. And James Smith does not say he didn't. Smith even interpets the experiment in terms of Newton's emission theory of light. Unfortunately I don't have the text in English - here it is in French:

James H. Smith, "Introduction à la relativité", édition française dirigée par Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source. (...) Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIÈRE SOIT INDÉPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPÉRIMENTALE."

Pentcho Valev

Steve Agnew

In my universe...

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 10:20 GMT

"If objects do not undergo matter exchange, is there time? Is there any sense in saying two objects did not have any matter exchange for the past 5 minutes?"

In my universe, it makes no sense to imagine matter without time and action or to imagine time without matter and action. They are all axioms and depend on each other for definition. However, if you imagine a universe where matter and time and action are somehow separable, you are very correct in noting that you end up with knife edge time. That one of the reason's why science's current approach does not make complete sense.

"When you say, "There is a universal time defined by the fundamental action of the universe as an object", what fundamental action are you talking about? Can the universe by definition exchange anything with another object?"

In my universe, there is a fundamental exchange of all matter with the universe matter, which is mostly bosonic. That exchange drives both gravity and charge force and so I am fond of it. But I must admit that current science has a slightly different continuous exchange of matter with the vacuum oscillators of empty space. That is the fundamental exchange that is current science, except for gravity of course.

"In summary, your proposal does not succeed in doing that which it is designed for which is to kill the 'instant' and wish Zeno's paradox away."

Actually, my proposal does indeed kill the Zeno demon, but my proposal does presume unified gravity and charge forces. The singularities that you mention in time are also present in space and are both due to the fact that relativistic gravity is presumed to be a continuous force. These gravity force singularities will persist until science recognizes gravity action as the exchange force that it is and gravity as an exchange force will result in the same possible futures for an object as quantum action.

Steve Agnew

I just happened to run across the Sagnac effect...

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 10:20 GMT

"We have gone this road before but I cant help asking what you think of the results of Sagnac's experiment where the rotation of the source and observer on a disk results in earlier and later arrival times depending on direction of rotation. This appears to conflict with the Michelson-Morley results, which after all was also conducted on a rotating and orbiting disk called Earth."

I just happened to run across the Sagnac effect and I must admit, I had really not paid much attention to it until recently. It turns out that while it is not possible to deduce absolute motion with an interferometer, any rotating interferometer will show a fringe shift due to optical rotation. The magnitude of the effect depends on the geometry of rotation and the type of interferometer.

Actually, it is easier to imagine a rotation of the polarization of a pulse of light due to the rotation of the experiment. In transit, the polarization of a light pulse remains fixed while the experiment rotates and the rotation of that polarization is at the root of the Sagnac effect. A rotating ring interferometer is especially well suited to measuring these very small changes.

The Michelson-Morley interferometer actually shows the Sagnac effect due to earth's rotation as well as the ring interferometer of the later Michelson-Gale experiment, just in a different way.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve,

1. To kill the very powerful Zeno demon, your proposal must demonstrate beyond doubt that space is not infinitely divisible, because if it is the runner will forever nearly reach his destination but not actually get there. It is more important to do this physically, rather than mathematically because there is no magic math cannot be used to perform. Methods like those of Cauchy and the rest do not really physically resolve the Paradox without sacrificing some cherished beliefs. You can see more here and on the online Stanford Encyclopedia. On second thought, your proposal can show how space is infinitely divisible and yet physically allows a runner reach his destination. Some of these issues are also part of the age-long debate whether space is a substantival or relational concept. You may check the Stanford entry here.

2. On the Sagnac experiment. It is not realized by many that the Michelson-Morley experiment though stationary but by virtue of being mounted on a rotating earth is actually also a Sagnac experiment. The dilemma is why one rotational experiment, the M-M one does not show difference in arrival times by counter-rotating beams, while another, the Sagnac one shows different arrival times for counter-rotating beams. I have my idea why, but let me leave that meanwhile. It is incorrect to say, "The Michelson-Morley interferometer actually shows the Sagnac effect due to earth's rotation". Modern versions of the M-M expt capable of detecting the 465m/s daily rotation turn up no difference in arrival times. References can be provided.

Akinbo

[deleted]

You are correct that the finite divisibility of the universe must be proven...

"To kill the very powerful Zeno demon, your proposal must demonstrate beyond doubt that space is not infinitely divisible, because if it is the runner will forever nearly reach his destination but not actually get there. It is more important to do this physically, rather than mathematically because there is no magic math cannot be used to perform."

You are correct that the finite divisibility of the universe must be proven just as the finite divisibility of matter has been proven...or at least mostly proven. I glossed over the fact that there are actually an infinity of vacuum oscillators in QED, and so one needs renormalization to make sense out of that concept.

My notion is rather that the universe is simply a very large number of boson particles, not an infinite number. Thus, there is still a renormalization needed to reduce the action integral to a practical form, but now renormalization is just for a finite but large number of particles.

Similar to the concept of the indivisibility of fermionic quarks, there should be a notion of indivisible bosons that make up most of the universe. This should manifest itself as a limiting energy for the proton accelerated by charge force on the order of 1/alpha^2 mp, or about 18 TeV. This is because a particle can only gain so much charge energy from a finitely divisible universe.

The rules change for gravity force acceleration, and so cosmic ray proton energies are limited by the current sizes of supermassive black holes...I think. Without a quantum gravity, though, there would be no such limit.

Notice that I am talking about a universe of matter in time, not a universe of space in time. Although space is a useful projection of the universe, my approach is to consider matter, time, and action as axioms that then project objects into space. That way maintains Lorentz invariance but avoids the messy tensors of GR spacetime.

Steve Agnew

The Sagnac effect is due to optical rotation, right?

"It is incorrect to say, "The Michelson-Morley interferometer actually shows the Sagnac effect due to earth's rotation". Modern versions of the M-M expt capable of detecting the 465m/s daily rotation turn up no difference in arrival times. References can be provided."

The Sagnac effect is due to optical rotation, right? That is all I am saying. If that is somehow wrong, I will stand to be corrected. All interferometers are subject to translation effects as Doppler shifts as well as optical rotation, which are more like polarization effects.

Whether a particular interferometer has the geometry and configuration to show optical rotation or spatial displacement or both is just a matter of design. When I read the literature about the Sagnac effect, there seems to be much confusion about what it measures, but the equation is very straightforward. Sagnac measures either rotational velocity or even just rotational displacement. To get a velocity, you need to know the geometry of the inertial frame.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve,

"That way maintains Lorentz invariance..."

What is Lorentz invariance?

Sagnac's experiment was done about 1913 or so and the purpose was to contradict the interpretation given to the Michelson-Morley experimental findings.

In simple terms, set up a turn-table with a light source and two detectors on the rim with the detectors equidistant from the source, e.g. D в†ђ S в†' D. The light beams reach the two detectors at the same time as shown by the interference pattern. Next spin the turn-table clockwise and look again. The interference pattern has changed showing that the light beam in the direction of clockwise rotation was reaching the detector later and the one going in the counter-clockwise direction was reaching the detector earlier. This is the Sagnac effect. It violates 'Lorentz invariance'. The effect was buried and not given the desired recognition. However with the coming of the GPS, the effect shows up and you know what? The establishment appropriates it as an effect of General relativity. Einstein himself would not have done this (I have given references here before), but those who have cultivated a cult around him are not so truthful in their dealings.

Scene 2.

Mount your detectors again on the turn-table in a similar equidistant way but this time the turn-table is at the earth's equator. Surprisingly, the rotational motion of the earth does not show up at the detectors on this turn-table. This is the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is what has given birth to 'Lorentz invariance'.

It is a puzzle that is still plaguing our physics and is being covered up with tensor calculus and other types of mathematical fiction like space-time, space warp, time travel, length contraction, frame dragging, etc.

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Truthfully, I did not realize that the Sagnac effect had this kind of following. My experience with interferometers is admittedly fairly pedestrian. My career in spectroscopy meant that I ended up doing a lot of FTIR and there was always this strange phase correction. You had to measure the phase with an interferometer in the exact place that it was going to be and that phase correction kept the spectral features from doing strange things. Finally I see why all FTIR's have to do a phase correction in the place that they do the measurement....

When I read about the Sagnac effect, most of what I read seemed to gloss over the role of optical rotation and phase correction. Unfortunately, in these complex FFT kinds of things, it is very common for technical people to argue endlessly. I take it you are familiar with FFT phase corrections and apodization functions? Until I see FFT's, phase correction, and apodization functions, it is hard for me to take anyone's interferometry very serious. Optical rotation is optical rotation. Doppler shift is doppler shift.

Until you can talk about these two issues, you cannot talk about the Sagnac effect very effectively. Please, give me spectra, give me FFT's, let me know about apodization functions and what is the phase correction that you use...

Akinbo Ojo

Unfortunately I am not expert in what you call FFT's, phase correction, and apodization functions. But when you say, "...Optical rotation is optical rotation. Doppler shift is doppler shift", I agree. That leaves the field free for theoretical speculation to decipher the truth. Why is it that one optical rotation experiment (Michelson & Morley's) does not show a difference in arrival times, and another rotation experiment (Sagnac's) shows this? Why is it that light on earth does not show a Doppler shift despite earth motion but light from the cosmic microwave background shows a shift?

My personal opinion is that we must return to some form of Galilean relativity which has a provision for both scenarios. This is unlike Lorentz invariance which means: No matter whether you remain stationary, move towards or away from an incoming light beam, it will arrive at the observer at the same time for the three scenarios. That is the resultant velocity of light is invariant.

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

You can view a translation of Sagnac's experiment here. You can also ask why an experiment of importance to foundational questions in physics was not translated from its french original and made widely available until recently.

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,

Steve Agnew might answer your question himself. I merely would like helping you to understand what apodization means: putting a window to the function subject to FFT.

Cannot you imagine phase jumping at a reflecting boundary by 180°?

Meanwhile I am getting disparate. Didn't I often enough object to the phrase "Michelson-Morley experiment"? Well, Michelson repeated in 1887 together with Morley his 1881 interferometric experiment. However, in principle the arrangement was still the same. I am not aware of a particular contribution by his coworker. The calculated for the 1887 paper expectation was not really improved but followed a misleading objection.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Eckard, I will get around to reading your essay in a few days. I still don't understand what apodization is but if it is relevant to the issue at hand I will read it up.

For you or any other person with an answer: When there is a Doppler shift is their any change of apparent wavelength as well as apparent frequency or is it frequency alone that changes and wavelength remain constant? References supporting the given answer would be helpful.

One reason I ask is because of the gravitational redshift. Does both frequency and wavelength change or is it only one of the two? I think Peter J is good at this sort of thing so Peter you may want to volunteer an answer (By the way I also look forward to reading your Alice and Bob essay. Any rational, classical-like solution to a quantum mystery should be welcome. But I see you have opposition. Good luck).

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

I really appreciate it when people think deeply about these issues. Interferometers are very tricky beasts and measure both doppler and phase shifts. Apodization is simply a way to smooth the edge effects of finite interferometers, but then introduce a whole series of artifacts as a result. Zero filling of interferograms is a similar smoothing technique, but this is all complexity that is beside the point.

The fact is that fringe shifts occur due to both length changes in an interferometer, i.e. doppler shifts, as well as to phase changes, i.e. rotation effects. A rotating inertial frame results in phase shifts that are absolutely measurable. A translating inertial frame does not result in any fringe shifts according to relativity.

Now if there were a quantum gravity, that would be the end of it. A quantum gravity, however, might introduce some difference in a translating frame of reference, but a continuum gravity simply cannot do that.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve,

You seem very knowledgeable about interferometers and I want to consult you later about its use in the confirmation of the General relativity prediction of solar deviation of light, using Very Long Baseline Interfermetry (VLBI). Before then you may view this paper by Fomalont on that subject (incl. the references and links therein). You may also want to volunteer an answer to whether it is frequency alone or both frequency and wavelength that change in a Doppler/ Phase shift.

On the issue at hand, your response is relevant, whether viewed as a doppler/ phase shift.

You said, "A rotating inertial frame results in phase shifts that are absolutely measurable".

1. A stationary interferometer mounted on the earth IS SURELY ALSO a rotating inertial frame but did not show phase shifts according to Michelson-Morley, why?

2. A rotating inertial frame resulted in phase shifts according to Sagnac, why?

How are 1 and 2 to be reconciled.

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Wow...I lost this thread and had a hard time finding it again.

"1. A stationary interferometer mounted on the earth IS SURELY ALSO a rotating inertial frame but did not show phase shifts according to Michelson-Morley, why?"

A linear interferometer like the Michelson-Morley will show phase shift due to optical rotation, but it depends on the orientation relative to the rotation. It also depends on any phase correction that you do. Optical rotation occurs not only due to physical rotation, but all due to the materials of the interferometer, beamsplitter, and mirrors introduce polarization phase shifts. There are standard means to correct for these phase effects.

"2. A rotating inertial frame resulted in phase shifts according to Sagnac, why?"

The Sagnac ring interferometer is also subject to orientation effects, but is normally oriented to maximize the optical rotation and then measure earth's rotation by a shift by a shift in its fringe shifts. The ring interferometer is especially sensitive to measuring rotation, the Michelson-Morley is not.

Measuring rotation of polarization, after all, can be done by any number of techniques.

Eckard Blumschein

Steve,

In order to easily find the thread you may use FQXi search and the word ripping.

What about the tricky apodization (windowing) I am perhaps still tho only one who takes the fact seriously that the future of a signal is not yet available for frequency analysis. I conclude that the current theory of signal processing blindly follows Heaviside who on his part was still aware of what he did: analytic continuation. While it is convenient to calculate as if a signal was symmetrical to t=0, without the due return to the domain of reality this view does not correspond to physical reality, neither in the cochlea nor in quantum physics. Future components are merely fictitious. A window that includes the future is non-causal and is therefore the source of paradoxes. That's why I am participating in the FQXi contests. May I hope that this will be accepted within my lifetime?

By the way, I am disappointed that you wrote Michelson-Morley instead of just Michelson. I know that Michelson was an enemy of Einstein's SR. Do you know Morley's position?

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard, that was very helpful advice. I have got lost here a couple of times. Perhaps, it may help if "author" and "date" are included in the search engine, at least for blog posts.

Steve,

"A linear interferometer like the Michelson-Morley will show phase shift due to optical rotation, but it depends on the orientation relative to the rotation."

As you may expect, the experiment has been done several times and in several ways, including East-West direction in which the Earth rotates at 465m/s and no shift was observed. Some of these experiments claim very high sensitivity enough to detect any shift. You can check this useful site.

Sagnac's 1913 experiment was not to measure earth's rotation but to find out if rotation will result in a shift which was not detected by the 1887 version using earth as the turn-table. A shift corresponding to the rotational speed of the turn-table was found.

Recall that what was in contention was whether motion towards incoming light could affect arrival time, which positive finding would suggest that light had a medium carrying it. The additional contention in view the null finding was whether such a medium could then be bound to earth so that earth rotation would have no effect on its arrival time as Michelson and Morley's experiment suggested. Then followed a long intellectual struggle that gave birth to Special relativity, which to many gives rise to many paradoxes. Sagnac's finding in any case does not sit well with SR's first postulate since light arrival time can be affected by the detector's motion.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo Ojo

Actually, these issues will require the concerted effort of many honest scientists and truth-seekers.

Robert W. Dunn, Dmitry E. Shabalin, Robert J. Thirkettle, Graeme J. MacDonald, Geoffrey E. Stedman, and K. Ulrich Schreiber, "Design and Initial Operation of a 367-m2 Rectangular Ring Laser," Appl. Opt. 41, 1685-1688 (2002)

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-41-9-1685

Abstract

The design and operation of a proof-of-principle rectangular He-Ne ring laser resonator with a cavity perimeter of 77.0 m and an area of ~367 m2 are described. With unevacuated beam lines this device gave an Earth-induced Sagnac frequency of 1513 Hz, with a relative Allan deviation over 1000 s down to 3 parts per million. The Earth's rotation provided a bias that eliminated the lock-in susceptibility. The use of increased pressure in the plasma tube facilitated single-mode operation by increasing the homogeneous pressure-broadened linewidth.

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

This is one crazy thread....

"By the way, I am disappointed that you wrote Michelson-Morley instead of just Michelson. I know that Michelson was an enemy of Einstein's SR. Do you know Morley's position?"

Thanks for the lead on Morley. I did not appreciate that Morley was a chemist, as am I by the way, and so that was fun. My history with interferometry always used the term Michelson-Morley to describe the FTIR interferometers. These use a combination of He-Ne laser, white light, and infrared light interferometry on the same beam path, and so are much more complex renditions.

My background in interferometery, then, makes me sensitive to simplistic descriptions of their applications.

I like how you refer to the future in your remarks on signal analysis. Superluminal or faster that the speed of light effects are a prominent feature of beamsplitters and interferometry.

Steve Agnew

You got that right!
"Actually, these issues will require the concerted effort of many honest scientists and truth-seekers."
I am afraid that I have gotten thoroughly confused about what the heck we were even arguing about. All I thought that I said was that earth's rotation caused optical rotation and optical rotation affects interfermetry.
Earth's linear velocity does not affect interferometry.
There seems to be something else going on. Now, I fully believe that there is more going on, but that which is going on requires more precision to discern. That is, a quantum gravity will have an impact on Einstein's relativity and will show the limitations of relativity. Until we have a quantum gravity, though, the result will be in limbo.
The LIGO experiments are really the best examples of interferometry in the world. Their upgrades should be very revealing once they start operating.
LIGO
There is also the Anarctic experiments of the ice cube neutrino lab
icecube
This stuff is way cool and a very nice complement to the various issues about aether. It is not that I am opposed to the existence of aether, although it is ostensibly about dark matter. In fact, it is rather that I seriously doubt the existence of space. Go figure...

Eckard Blumschein

Steve,
You wrote: "Superluminal or faster that the speed of light effects are a prominent feature of beamsplitters and interferometry."
In order to avoid confusion you should add the attribute apparent or specify a link you are referring to. Perhaps you referred to phase velocity.
I see my question unanswered: Did Morley support Einstein's theory of SR?
Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,
You wrote:"... the Sagnac effect. It violates 'Lorentz invariance'."
I guess, the explanation of the discrepancy between Michelson's and Sagnac's experiments deserves a careful but also easily understandable to everybody explanation in which not every believer in a cherished theory might be interested.
Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Steve,
Thanks very much for your LIGO link. Contains other linked sites and I think it is a must read for everybody...
- Light can be polarized; Gravitational waves can be polarized.
- Light travels at c; Gravitational waves travel at c.
- Observations from the BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole demonstrates that gravitational waves were abundant in the early universe; Observations reveal an abundance of light radiation in the early chapter of our universe's history, the relic glow is called the cosmic microwave background.
- Gravitational waves are vibrations that cause the distance (space) between objects to change in an oscillatory manner, and this will change the type of interference pattern in LIGO. In short, gravitational waves propagate as vibrations of space.
If we now apply the famous principle of reductio ad absurdum or its corollary (increase to coherence and common sense), and going by the precedence set when Light was termed an electromagnetic wave, because Maxwell's theory found that electromagnetic waves will travel at c and light travels at c. It follows from the foregoing that with the similarities between Gravitational waves and Light,
*In the vast emptiness of space, Light should also be a vibration in space (or space-time for some) since it also travels at c.
*Space is therefore not a nothingness, but something that can be made to vibrate and propagate waves.
* Space can react, and from the action-reaction principle, only things that can act, can also react.
I end with some quotes from that great son of humanity:
"...it is clear that philosophers would cheerfully allow space to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can" (General relativity now supports that space can react), "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance" (If space now has a reality, then the Platonic point, line and surface are not fictions as mathematicians would have us believe), "And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between body and space. The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them..." (ultimately therefore the fundamental constituent of both body and space will be one, the Monad) - Sir Isaac Newton, De Gravitatione et Aequipondio Fluidorum.
Moral 1. The stone the builders refused will return to be the head cornerstone. Moral 2. Any wrong theory, no matter how twisted to fit contains the seed of its own destruction.
Regards,
Akinbo
(Take note that I am not a supporter of inflation theory and I can provide irrefutable arguments if asked. But I believe the universe had a beginning. Also, although this thread says 'Ripping Einstein Apart', I am his supporter, but not a fanatical and blind one. As Newton would say, Euclid is our friend, Plato is our friend, Galileo is our friend but our greatest friend should be Truth).

Pentcho Valev

I am surprised that the Sagnac case is given so much consideration here, as if people knew what they were talking about. The calculations involved are virtually impossible to make. Much much simpler calculations showing that c'=c+v is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment are beyond the reach of most scientists nowadays.
Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,
The Sagnac case actually deserves more respect. It is a poison difficult to swallow by the occupants of the sinking ship in Einsteiniana. SR says motion of observer does not affect arrival time, Sagnac finds otherwise experimentally, showing that c' = c +/-v, thus falsifying that postulate. See this interesting experiment done in 2006.
Regards,
Akinbo

Steve Agnew

I am finally catching up to this rather long blog line. Horava's quantum gravity paper is at the root of Swarup's essay Ripping Einstein. Horava's paper shows Einstein's GR 4-space as a local effect and that local 4-space evolves into a 2-space of time with one dimension of space at cosmic scale.
That gravity and quantum charge forces are fundamentally incompatible is really not that difficult to show in many different ways. My favorite way is simply to note that GR action has only one possible future for an object while QM action has a large number of possible futures for the same object. Note that this does not mean that the 4-space approaches of SR and GR do not have realms and scales for which they are applicable. In particular, the interferometer measurements seem to be fully consistent with SR and GR, at least to the precision today.
The Sagnac effect is really not that hard to explain nor to calculate, so I do not understand why this represents something about whether or not aether exists. It is true that the strange effects of ring interferometers are at least twice as difficult to understand as are linear interferometers, maybe even four times as difficult. Just look at how ring lasers operate compared to linear lasers. Suffice it to say that the Sagnac effect just does not violate any principles of SR or GR. However, this blog line does show how difficult it is to convey the complexity of a ring interferometer measurements.
That light is transverse polarized as well as quantized is fundamental to the wave-particle dichotomy of light. The Bicep2 gravity wave polarization measurements of the CMB are actually the first observation to show gravity as a polarized wave similar to light. Just this one measurement is all that it takes to invalidate Einstein's continuum nature of gravity under both SR and GR.
If you want to rip Einstein's GR, this would be a much better place to start. You are fundamentally correct that GR has its limits, but the optical interferometers that you mention do not yet have the precision needed to make that determination. However, there will very likely be more sensitive measurements in the future that will show the limits of GR locally. Atom interferometers, for example, could be sensitive enough in the future to measure both proper time along with atomic or action time. It will take such measurements with several more orders of magnitude precision to make these determinations in the future.
Will these experiments then prove the existence of aether? I think that they will show that the universe is in fact made up of mostly bosonic matter that you can call aether or whatever, but that science will also need to understand space as emergent. The universe is really not made up of space to begin with, rather, space is a result of matter, time, and quantum action. So aether as matter does not fill space...rather it is matter, time, and action that create our sensation of space.

Akinbo Ojo

Interesting submission Steve. As you said the blog line getting rather long so let me round up my position...
RE: "Suffice it to say that the Sagnac effect just does not violate any principles of SR or GR".
A fundamental postulate of SR is that the velocity of an observer, whether linear velocity or angular velocity cannot affect light arrival time (see the experiment I linked to Pentcho). Hence the 'resultant' velocity of light is always a constant value and cannot be c+v or c-v. In any case, since the Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted on Earth, it is also a rotational experiment, at least from the Earth's 465m/s rotation and the Sagnac effect was absent in the M-M experiment (and modern versions using resonance cavities capable of ~3m/s accuracy similarly do not see the earth's rotation). The task is how to reconcile both findings without inconsistency. I think Galileo can do so.
RE: "If you want to rip Einstein's GR, this would be a much better place to start."
No. Einstein has already partially disowned the postulate that his followers are clinging to. Talk of the dancers no longer listening to the drummer's beats. Hear the drummer: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity", p.903 and "... 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity... We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold ONLY so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields",p.89 (certainly the earth where the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out has a gravitational field, therefore any postulate arising from a null result must first disregard this field before it can claim validity).
RE: "I think that... the universe is in fact made up of mostly bosonic matter that you can call aether or whatever, but that science will also need to understand space as emergent."
Fair enough but Aether is not matter and so cannot be gravitationally bound to earth and in the alternative there are inconsistencies for it to be fully dragged by Fresnel's mechanism. Maybe your bosonic matter can come to the rescue to form a light-carrying medium capable of being earth-bound since it can interact gravitationally. This can provide a means of reconciling Sagnac and Michelson-Morley findings, since in the latter that medium will carry light along with earth motion, while in the former with a turntable rotating on earth, the earth-bound medium does not partake of the turn-table's motion, light is therefore not carried along with turn-table motion and so light arrival times depend on the direction of rotation.
I think a beer is in order. Its 8pm here. Good night and thanks.
Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Actually, angular velocity is different in SR compared with linear velocity.
"A fundamental postulate of SR is that the velocity of an observer, whether linear velocity or angular velocity cannot affect light arrival time (see the experiment I linked to Pentcho)."
A rotating spaceship is quite easy to discern from inside the ship even though a translating ship is what SR shows cannot be determined. This has nothing to do with different light speeds, it has to do with the fringe shift of an interferometer because of the phase effect, not because of arm displacement.

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, agreed there is some difference but I ask you simply whether the Michelson-Morley experiment and its SR findings were carried out on a rotating platform or not? That is, a platform rotating at 465m/s. If that is the case, you must be aware that no fringe shift of an interferometer because of the phase effect was observed to high sensitivity, at least sensitive enough to detect that the platform on which their interferometer is mounted was rotating.
Then whether it is 'quite easy' to discern whether a ship is rotating... can you discern whether our ship (earth) is rotating without looking out of the ship?
Akinbo
(I deleted part of the post cos getting long)

Steve Agnew

A linear interferometer is not normally sensitive enough to measure very small optical rotation, that is true. The platform is definitely rotating, but at 7.3e-5 rad/s, not at 465 m/s, which is the projected linear velocity at that radius of the earth.
Inertial forces of rotation are quite easy to measure from inside the ship since then will lead to a kind of gravity. The ring interferometer measures rotations, not translations.

Akinbo Ojo

Since v = rω, you can take your choice between the speed v at 465m/s or equivalently, the angular velocity, ω at 7.3 x 10-5 radians per second.
If we are on the same page that the platform is 'definitely' rotating, being conversant with interferometers as you said you are, it might interest you that ring interferometers did not detect that rotation to very high precision, (with claimed sensitivities above 7.3 x 10-20 radians per second!). As I posted before you can read some of the experiments here. Perhaps there may be flaws in them. I however believe they are correct, that is rotational velocity affects light speed for a turn-table rotating on Earth surface, while the Earth, itself as a turn-table does not cause a difference in arrival times for counter-rotating light beams and I propose that Galilean relativity can explain this. Or what alternative explanation do you have?
Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Okay, I reviewed that link and it clearly states that the Michelson-Gale experiment, which is a ring interferometer, did measure earth's rotation velocity. It was not clear which paper you are referring to that did not measure earth's rotation despite having the needed precision. We know the earth is rotating and we know that the earth's rotation or any rotation is equivalent to optical rotation of polarized light, which by the way we measure all of the time for materials. Ring lasers are used for gyroscopes today because of that.
What is not so clear to me is why this is not clear to you.

pjackson

Steve,
I've analysed all and found we should be extremely cautious with interpretations of interferometer experiments.
The large scale Michelson Gale Pearson experiment in 1926 firmly concluded ether. Science often lauds or ignores findings according to prior beliefs. A revealing analysis including of MGP and a coherent mechanism is described here; but don't read if you're of faint heart, prefer inconsistencies, or believe all present doctrine is faultless.
arXiv; Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.
Best wishes
Peter

[deleted]

Steve, if it clear to you that electromagnetic phenomena using ring lasers can be used to measure rotation then we are still in agreement. You are however probably unaware that such ring lasers, if earth-bound, i.e. stationary to earth, do not detect the earth's rotation. The Michelson-Gale experiment has not been repeated and Peter J's paper provides reasons why it may be inaccurate to decide our correct physical theory. Also, it has not been repeatable, which is an important feature for experiments. In any case, the MG result suggests an ether exists, which no one wants to hear these days so lets leave it out. The papers I referred to are those using a different method, Optical resonators/Cavities, etc. They claim an ability to detect effects due to Earth rotation at 30m/s (Brillet and Hall) and probably up to 3m/s (Chen et al) but did not see any, talk less of the 465m/s or 7.3 x 10-5 radians/second. So what is unclear not only to you but to me and many others is: Why some sensitive experiments don't see earth rotation, while others see, especially those above Earth surface like the GPS. Could there be a principle or a 'something' at Earth surface (inside the ship) preventing the detection, which principle or 'something' is absent or different at some altitude above Earth surface (above and out of the ship)?
And by the way you mentioned 'translational' velocity and Einstein used the term as well. Is the Earth's 30km/s motion actually translational (i.e.linear) in a strict sense? Is it not rotational? How and when was a circular path around the Sun sold to us as a translational one and who bought this on our behalf without the warranty that it should be returnable to the seller? If it is claimed that SR is valid in the linear regime, what then is the effect on SR validity since Earth motion as pointed out by you at 7.3 x 10-5 radians/second was not linear in the first place and not even approximately so. The time has come not to buy anything without proper scrutiny. Our innocence and simplicity has been taken for granted by the Science establishment as presently constituted. We have been sold a lot of dummies in the past. Peter has been battling those clinging to these dummies on the Classical Spheres blog but they would not bulge due to the brainwash and the trust they still hold in the goods of the sellers. All I can repeat is the legal maxim Caveat emptor (Buyer Beware). The Earth has no 30 km/s translational velocity, unless maybe the 380km/s velocity relative to the CMB radiation. PERIOD.
Hi Peter, just re-read that paper. On the plus side, brilliant and brings up physical mechanisms to consider which are usually overlooked. On the minus side, your papers are usually too long and put in too much on the plate thereby liable to cause indigestion. In my view, writing in bits may be helpful. For example your analysis of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment pointing out the asymmetry in the experimental set-up which might have in turn caused the asymmetry of the findings can stand alone as a paper and it solved my long-standing headache caused me by that experimental result. I can now cling more strongly to my Galilean relativity. Still have your essay on my to do list but still to overcome my inertia.
Akinbo

Steve Agnew

You obviously are very well steeped in this literature and much more knowledgeable than I. As soon as I realized that it was optical rotation that these experiments were addressing and not translation, that immediately informed me of the nature of the controversy.
It could be that I am mistaken, but there are all kinds of rabbit holes in science and very intelligent people can spend their entire careers chasing down such blind alleys.
I appreciate your thoughtful attitude and your stubborn adherence to an idea. As long as it is testable and reasonable, that is a good scientific approach. I am a quantumologist and so am much more comfortable with the odd effects of our quantum reality.
Science today is in a rabbit hole called general relativity and until there is a really new direction, science will continue beating its head into the brick wall of a deterministic gravity force. Once science opens up to the possibilities of quantum exchange forces and interference effects for what we call gravity, we will then recognize GR as the patchwork that it is. Science needs to abandon the 4-space paradigm and adopt a different approach to matter and time.

Akinbo Ojo

Perhaps, the last word has not been said about 'translational' and 'rotational' effects of motion on light velocity. This in my opinion is a very interesting but long article on the subject by Paulo Correa, PhD and Alexandra Correa. And the Michelson-gale paper is available in the archives here.
According to Mach's principle, one should not be able to measure any speed of rotation relative to space, since space is a nothing based on this principle as opposed to space being something as Newton sought to demonstrate with his bucket experiment. So is space something in Einstein's relativity contrary to Mach's principle?
Akinbo
*Peter there may be issues for your view on the MGP experiment here as it seems I have to return to square one.

pjackson

Akinbo,
I can give a completely consistent description but most won't like it (from their rabbit holes).
Steve, Could you read my essay fully deriving QM's predictions from a (99.999%) classical mechanism, and comment. Do Bob and Alice have a future?
1. Ring gyro's DO detect rotation, but also DO affect travel time in the non rotating frame. The light propagates at c in the rotating frame.
2. M&M was non-zero not 'null'. most interferomenter experiments are flawed and almost all analysis flawed, thus all the inconsistancies and confusion. A major flaw was asymmetric surface crossing numbers, changing time taken by ~60fs. arguing over a 20% fringe shift is a mistake when it's 2 bands out.
3. Planet surface interferometers will NOT detect much non extinct barycentric frame propagation rates (so called 'ether') because most HAS reached it's extinction distance for the atmospheric medium so has been re-scattered to the local c. Study Millers later findings at altitude. The higher he went the greater the Barycentric (solar wind rest frame) fraction. (study J.D Jackson).
4. If you accelerate towards a light source the Light changes speed ON ARRIVAL, at your own fine structure electrons ('surface charge' TZ) not light years away! (How anyone could even believe that is beyond me). It propagates at c/n in your lens wrt the lens rest frame and ONLY that lens rest frame. SR's interpretation is then wrong, as, strictly, is Pentcho as the postulates themselves are correct when properly interpreted. Propagation is a LOCAL phenomena, and time (unlike 'signals') is an absolute rate as it doesn't 'exist' as such.
5. The above should be re-read about 5 times as it appears aliens may have removed the critical brain cells best able to rationalise it so it's forgotten. I can think of few other explanations.
6. The interaction with electrons can rotate the optical axis of the re-emission slightly due to both field (electron spin) orientation and lateral motion (as the VLBA found). The slow change in a diffuse medium makes the refraction take a gentle curve. Both axis are visible, causing (the 'anomalous') scintillation and 'multi-refringence' effects found.
7. Space is big. But we can make small models of it with more dense media; Look up 'grin lenses' which give curved 'light paths' (actually 'JM rotation' of optical axis).
8. Just about every anomaly in astronomy (counted by the dozen) is resolved by that coherent ontology. If anything appears incoherent it's because you haven't understood and applied it consistently. Just ask. My last 4 essays explain and evidence the various aspects. Not one proposition therein (all falsifiable) has been falsified. This years essay clears the way for unification.
Now I do hope that clarifies everything. But if these 'discrete field' dynamics enter doctrine prior to 2020 I owe a colleague lunch as the Ivy.
Best wishes
Peter

Steve Agnew

I read your essay and I must admit that your title was not that appealing. I do not find that attributing coherent attributes to people is a very revealing way to explain quantum coherence.
I do like it that you have a beamsplitter, my favorite quantum device, but your allegory does not seem to mention coherence at all. I really do not pay too much attention to Bell's theorem since it seems to obsess about a one tiny aspect of quantum wave-particle duality and ignore everything else in quantumology. The real shame is that we do not have a quantum gravity yet, since that would help a lot in explaining these issues.
There is a simple question to answer from any beamsplitter experiment. Is the beamsplitter ballistic and deterministic or is the beamsplitter uncertain and probabilistic?
If the you say that a particle journeyed one way or the other, the beamsplitter is ballistic. If you say that even when you measure the particle arrival, that you are still uncertain of its path, then you are probablistic and that is the nature of our quantum reality. Truthfully, I cannot tell which experiment that you describe since you have chosen to use people to represent coherent matter.

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Peter,
concerning the classical mechanism you mentioned to Steve Agnew, can this mechanism explain what is going on when a photon meets a beam-splitter with probability 50:50 for transmission/reflection of that photon?
How does your mechanism explain the transmission? How does your mechanism explain the reflection?
Best wishes,
Stefan

Pentcho Valev

Why Einstein Proposed His Second Postulate III
The assumption that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source is false but still can be justified in terms of light waves propagating in the ether. In contrast, the conclusion (derivable from Einstein's 1905 two postulates) that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the observer is unjustifiable. Any serious interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) refutes both this conclusion and special relativity as a whole:
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
Tony Harker: "In a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t."
Consequence: The speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:
c' = distance/time = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo,
in violation of special relativity.
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
Let "the distance between subsequent pulses" be 300000 km. Then the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f = 1 s^(-1) and that measured by the moving receiver is f' = 4/3 s^(-1). Accordingly, the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s
in violation of special relativity.
The relativistic corrections change essentially nothing. The speed of the receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Special relativity remains violated.
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

In order to vindicate the introduction of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate (directly adopted from the otherwise discarded ether theory), Einsteinians teach the following two blatant lies:
1. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory predicted that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not depend on the speed of the observer. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer.)
2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not depend on the speed of the observer. (The truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the speed of light DOES DEPEND on the speed of the observer, as predicted by both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory.)
Examples of blatantly lying Einsteinians:
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 19: "If she fires the laser toward you - and if you had the appropriate measuring equipment - you would find that the speed of approach of the photons in the beam is 670 million miles per hour. But what if you run away, as you did when faced with the prospect of playing catch with a hand grenade? What speed will you now measure for the approaching photons? To make things more compelling, imagine that you can hitch a ride on the starship Enterprise and zip away from your friend at, say, 100 million miles per hour. Following the reasoning based on the traditional Newtonian worldview, since you are now speeding away, you would expect to measure a slower speed for the oncoming photons. Specifically, you would expect to find them approaching you at (670 million miles per hour - 100 million miles per hour =) 570 million miles per hour. Mounting evidence from a variety of experiments dating back as far as the 1880s, as well as careful analysis and interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, slowly convinced the scientific community that, in fact, this is not what you will see. Even though you are retreating, you will still measure the speed of the approaching photons as 670 million miles per hour, not a bit less. Although at first it sounds completely ridiculous, unlike what happens if one runs from an oncoming baseball, grenade, or avalanche, the speed of approaching photons is always 670 million miles per hour. The same is true if you run toward oncoming photons or chase after them - their speed of approach or recession is completely unchanged; they still appear to travel at 670 million miles per hour. Regardless of relative motion between the source of photons and the observer, the speed of light is always the same."
Pentcho Valev

« Previous Page Next Page »