# A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light

## Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Phase velocity varies depending on its wavelength in a dispersive medium. The only time it can be constant is in a vacuum. However group velocity is also constant in a vacuum.

If you have a paper showing otherwise please post it (preferably arxiv) I'll bet there is some medium involved in those papers.

In essence in circumstances where w does not equal ck.

However your still missing one key problem.

$the group velocity and not the phase velocity describes the velocity of a particle [/b] Good example the QM or QFT superposition particle state is described via its group velocity. Don't you think QM in any form is irrelevent here? The OP has not introduced it. The OP's description is about purely classical and continuum matters, viz the velocity of light and (special?) relativity. He has also failed to see that the mechanism of propagation of light is actually irrelevent to relativity. (Although I am not saying that relativity has no consequences for those properties of light) ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites • Replies 58 • Created • Last Reply #### Top Posters In This Topic #### Popular Days #### Top Posters In This Topic #### Popular Days I realize that Studiot but quite frankly I am unclear if he truly understands the difference between a phase velocity and a group velocity. So I gave an example. Relativity also does little to define a particle as per wavefunction states. Yet this is important to understand why relativity doesn't deal with phase velocity but the group velocity. Ie an earlier statement the phase velocity does not describe the particle velocity the group velocity does. On 9/23/2019 at 3:19 AM, studiot said: How do you explain the waveguide equation (experimentally verified many thousands of times every day) ? VpVg = c2 Where c has its usual meaning as a constant Vp is the phase velocity Vg is the group velocity This relates back to the following question if you think about it. If the OP sets the phase velocity as constant and equal to c then the group velocity must equal the phase velocity to satisfy the equation you posted. In the case of a massive particles who's group velocity is less than c the phase velocity must exceed c. You must apply both the massless and massive case under relativity but the OP clearly doesn't understand why the group velocity is the particle velocity. Edited by Mordred ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 53 minutes ago, Mordred said: I am unclear if he truly understands the difference between a phase velocity and a group velocity Me too, which is why I posed it as a question (more than once) rather than stating the result. The stated aim is to offer an alternative to relativity that results in the same mathematical consequences, but for different reasons. Therefore we must work from the initial postulate through the derivations to see if this is the case . This has prooved rather slippery and elusive. The OP appears to want to jump from postulate to final conclusion without the intermediate working, offering instead just assurances. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites Well I for one have no confidence of validity from what I have read thus far. Too many inaccuracies in the paper in terms of what is involved in stated experiments. Good example being the MM experiment where the frame dragging aspect of an absolute frame is ignored as one example. From what I can determine non standard use of the terms phase and group velocities. Though quite frankly having an absolute frame using wavefuctions makes absolutely zero sense under vector symmetry treatments. Particularly one being emitted from a moving source. You would still require time dilation and length contraction to keep the phase velocity constant. Edited by Mordred ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites On 9/24/2019 at 9:32 PM, studiot said: Second problem. Can you explain to me the difference between the phase and group velocities of light in a vacuum? I ask because you apparently wish to substitute one for the other in conventional formulae. The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves. Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense) peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying) is nothing but ether thinking. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is admitting /accepting the ether because one is thinking about a fixed /objective wave independent of the observer. The current mainstream (and 'natural') view of phase and group velocity is tied to the ether because both phase and group velocities are seen as aspects (parameters) of one objectively existing thing: the ether wave. Because both are features of the same entity, they are always connected together because both are derived from it. The new theory is that phase and group velocity are completely independent, and are not connected. I think this is the root problem. With the new theory, the group ( the energy packet) velocity is variable and the phase velocity is constant. The difficulty to understand this arises because we still think of both as different parameters of the same thing: the ether. Group velocity of light in vacuum is always c + - V relative to a moving observer. We should not think of deriving it from the wave equation like for sound waves. We don't derive the group velocity and the phase velocity from an (ether) wave equation in the case of light. Rather, I think, we formulate the wave equation from the phase velocity (c) , the group velocity (c +- V) , and frequency (from exponential Doppler effect) and phase (from Apparent Source Theory), which is the other way round. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 2 minutes ago, lidal said: The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves. No it isn't. Sound waves require a medium. The speed of sound waves is observer dependent. Apart from the fact they are both described by wave equations, they don't have much in common. You seem very fond of these straw man arguments against current theory. Which is odd as you starting out saying that: Quote One of the fallacious arguments usually presented in favor of relativity is the failure of classical theories and the lack of any competing alternative theory. The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory. This is, of course, false. But it is exactly the argument you are making: if there is something wrong with relativity, then your model must be right. But, apart from the fact there are no flaws in relativity, this logic is bogus as you rightly point out. 9 minutes ago, lidal said: Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense) peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying) is nothing but ether thinking Nonsense. You could, of course, are claim that the electromagnetic field is the "aether" but it has none of the physical properties of the traditional luminiferous aether. So the analogy is fatally flawed. You seem to be claiming that because light is a wave then there must be a medium. This was the false reasoning that led to an initial assumption that there was an aether. It was wrong then, and you are still wrong. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites One of the problems ppl have when they present ether based theories is the assumption that the tests have stopped at the more commonly known tests. There have been dozens of different tests looking for an ether that all show null results the latest that I am familiar with was done in 2009. This test looked for Ether at the quantum level with its extreme precision. [math]\Delta c/c=1*10^{-17}$ for the precision level. Still absolutely no indication of an ether.

@Op your going to need some incredibly strong evidence well beyond any mathematics your papers indicate to account for how these null results can occur with your theory. Quite frankly without extremely accurate precision tests you really don't have much hope in competing with the overwhelming evidence against you.

Here is the relevent arxiv to the result above

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lidal said:

The new theory is that phase and group velocity are completely independent, and are not connected.

We don't derive the group velocity and the phase velocity from an (ether) wave equation in the case of light. Rather, I think, we formulate the wave equation from the phase velocity (c) , the group velocity    (c +- V) ,  and frequency (from exponential Doppler effect) and phase (from Apparent Source Theory), which is the other way round.

Thank you for your response to my question.

You very clearly mean quite different things in your use of the words group velocity and phase velocity, and even perhaps velocity.

Do you offer any sort of base definitions?

3 hours ago, lidal said:

The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves. Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense)  peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying)  is nothing but ether thinking. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is admitting /accepting the ether because one is thinking about a fixed /objective wave independent of the observer.

The current mainstream (and 'natural') view  of phase and group velocity is tied to the ether because both phase and group velocities are seen as aspects (parameters) of one objectively existing thing:  the ether wave. Because both are features of the same entity, they are always connected together because both are derived from it.

I think this is the root problem. With the new theory, the group ( the energy packet)  velocity is variable and the phase velocity is constant. The difficulty to understand this arises because we still think of both as different parameters of the same thing: the ether. Group velocity of light in vacuum is always c + - V relative to a moving observer. We should not think of deriving it from the wave equation like for sound waves.

.

I have disentangled your statements of your own theory from you statements of misunderstanding of conventional Physics

Conventionally we do not derive the wave nature of light from the wave equation, nor have we ever done this.

The attribution of a wavelike nature comes from two directions

Historically the first clues were experimental, diffraction effects such as appear the umbra and penumbra of shadows and many others.

Then along came this guy Maxwell and his famous four equations concerning electric and magnetic fields (none of which are wave equations) and he further discovered that if he played around mathematically with them as simultaneous equations and applied a bit of calculus he could combine them into one differential equation which had the same mathematical form as what we now call
'The Wave Equation'

That is he discovered that combined electric and magnetic fields have the capacity to produce and support the coupled oscillations of wave motion.
He further noted that such motion would have the same characteristic speed as recent (to him) measurements indicated light travelled at.

He therefore proposed in the mid 1800s that his oscillations and light were one and the same.

We now know that that is not enough, but it was pretty good for his time.

Half a century later, Einstein carefully considered the relationship between light, regardless of how it works or is propagated, and both Maxwell's laws and the laws of Mechanics and came up with his first theory of relativity which included a velocity which was also had the same value as that measured (by then more accurately) and predicted by Maxwell.

We now call that velocity c.

Since you have not fully answered my question about the difference between phase velocity and group velocity in a vacuum (have you now dropped this requirement, you didn't mention it lately).

Conventionally according to Maxwell they are both the same and both equal c in a vacuum.

It doesn't actually matter in Relativity since the mechanism of propagation is irrelevant to relativistic considerations.

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lidal said:

The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves.

Um, no.

Quote

Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense)  peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying)  is nothing but ether thinking. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is admitting /accepting the ether because one is thinking about a fixed /objective wave independent of the observer.

The peaks and troughs are the maxima of the E & M fields of the EM radiation. I don't see how that is "ether thinking"

There are also experiments that rely on these fields existing.

##### Share on other sites

On 9/23/2019 at 8:51 AM, lidal said:

A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light

I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory. I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

It doesn't actually matter in Relativity since the mechanism of propagation is irrelevant to relativistic considerations.

Now that we have reached this point let us review your beginning.

Consider two observers in relative motion  (which might be zero) v between them.

Observer 1 is located at the origin O of the coordinate system x,y,z,t.

Observer 2 is located at the origin O' of a second coordinate system x',y',z',t'.

As the second system origin O' passes through and is coincident with the first system origin O,

it happens that observer 1 emits a pulse of light.

Observer 1 sees a spherical light front travelling out from his source in all directions and obeying the equation

x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2

Where c is the velocity of propagation of light as measured by Fizeau et al.

Now the questions arise

What does observer 2 see?
And what is the resulting equation for his observation?
And how is this connected to what observer 1 sees along with his equation.

This is where any hypothesis must introduce a postulate and you say the postulate introduced by Einstein is incorrect.

So my question to you is

What is your alternative hypothesis and what conclusion (equation) does it come to?

Note that so far c is just a symbol for a constant in the equation

distance = speed x time

It is nothing more than this and at this point has no special significance nor can it descibe the mechanism of travel.

##### Share on other sites

On 9/27/2019 at 1:00 AM, Mordred said:

One of the problems ppl have when they present ether based theories is the assumption that the tests have stopped at the more commonly known tests.

There have been dozens of different tests looking for an ether that all show null results the latest that I am familiar with was done in 2009. This test looked for Ether at the quantum level with its extreme precision.

Δc/c=11017 for the precision level. Still absolutely no indication of an ether.

@Op your going to need some incredibly strong evidence well beyond any mathematics your papers indicate to account for how these null results can occur with your theory. Quite frankly without extremely accurate precision tests you really don't have much hope in competing with the overwhelming evidence against you.

Here is the relevent arxiv to the result above

The modern Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments using optical cavity resonators are searching for something that doesn't exist in the first place: the ether. Like the conventional MM experiments they are designed and capable to detect the ether if the ether existed, but incapable to detect absolute motion. The ether should have been subjected to a thorough conceptual test even before doing any physical experiment. Nevertheless, the MM experiments are very important because they  have succeeded in disproving the ether with a physical experiment. But the MM experiments (both conventional and modern) are based on a flawed and simplistic view that absolute motion is motion relative to the ether.

Apparent Source Theory can explain not only the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments but also the almost complete null results of modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators.

Let me first formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional MM experiments again.

Small fringe shifts in the MM interferometer can be produced in two ways.

1. By setting the MM apparatus in absolute motion

OR

2. By slight change of source position (1mm for example)  about its initial position. ( a classical geometrical optics problem)

The effect of absolute motion of the MM apparatus is to create an apparent change of source position relative to the detector (i.e. relative to the point of detection)

The fringe shift for a given absolute velocity of the MM apparatus is equal to the fringe shift due to a corresponding actual/physical change of source position. For every absolute velocity there is a corresponding change of source position that produces the same fringe shift. This procedure turns the difficult  problem of absolute motion into a straight forward,classical optics problem, which involves familiar laws such as 'angle of incidence equals angle of reflection '.

The corresponding change of source position for every absolute velocity is determined by using the Apparent Source Theory (AST) . It is determined by the source detector distance, the magnitude and direction of the absolute velocity, and the orientation of the source detector line with respect to absolute velocity direction.

By using this procedure, I have been able to predict a fringe shift of 0.013 which is  of the same order as the measured fringe shift of 0.018, for the Michelson 1881 experiment. This discrepancy is because of lack of information on detailed dimensions of the 1881 experiment. (Only the 1.2m arm length is known) .

One of the unexpected results is that the fringe shift depends not only on the distances between the mirrors and the beam splitter, but also on the distances of the light source and the detector from the beam splitter! Note that these distances are irrelevant in ether theory, Lorentz theory and SRT.

By slight changes in the distances of the beam splitter from the source and the detector I got a fringe shift of 0.021.

One of the significant results of  AST is that the fringe shift for absolute velocities along the longitudinal direction is zero. This is unlike ether theory, which predicts a maximum fringe shift in that direction. According to AST, the maximum fringe shift occurs for absolute velocities in the transverse direction. This may explain why the Miller experiments gave a direction almost ninety degrees different from the CMBR and Silvertooth direction!

For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson experiment, please read my paper on Vixra:

" New Interpretation and Analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "

The explanation of the null results of the modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators is basically the same. Suppose that, with the experimental setup at absolute rest, the two lasers are slightly moved back and forth about their initial position. Will this produce any significant change in the resonance frequency of the cavities? I don't  think so. In the modern MM experiments also the effect of absolute motion is just to create an apparent change of source (laser)  position from the point of observation.

##### Share on other sites

In order to avoid any misunderstandings, let me formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional Michelson-Morley experiment again.

1. The effect of absolute motion of the Michelson-Morley interferometer is to create an APPARENT change of source position relative to the detector

2. This APPARENT change in source position creates a small fringe shift AS IF it is an ACTUAL / physical change in source position.

From classical geometrical optics it is straight forward to see that (actual) change in source position creates a small fringe shift because the path lengths of the two light beams will be slightly different when the source position is changed slightly.

For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson-Morley experiment, please read my paper on Vixra:

" New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "

##### Share on other sites

On 9/27/2019 at 5:23 PM, studiot said:

This is where any hypothesis must introduce a postulate and you say the postulate introduced by Einstein is incorrect.

So my question to you is

What is your alternative hypothesis and what conclusion (equation) does it come to?

Are you planning to answer my question, now asked several times ?

##### Share on other sites

Also my questions

##### Share on other sites

On 9/26/2019 at 10:48 PM, lidal said:

We don't derive the group velocity and the phase velocity from an (ether) wave equation in the case of light. Rather, I think, we formulate the wave equation from the phase velocity (c) , the group velocity    (c +- V) ,  and frequency (from exponential Doppler effect) and phase (from Apparent Source Theory), which is the other way round.

On 9/27/2019 at 7:23 PM, studiot said:

Now that we have reached this point let us review your beginning.

Consider two observers in relative motion  (which might be zero) v between them.

Observer 1 is located at the origin O of the coordinate system x,y,z,t.

Observer 2 is located at the origin O' of a second coordinate system x',y',z',t'.

As the second system origin O' passes through and is coincident with the first system origin O,

it happens that observer 1 emits a pulse of light.

Observer 1 sees a spherical light front travelling out from his source in all directions and obeying the equation

x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2

Where c is the velocity of propagation of light as measured by Fizeau et al.

Now the questions arise

What does observer 2 see?
And what is the resulting equation for his observation?
And how is this connected to what observer 1 sees along with his equation.

This is where any hypothesis must introduce a postulate and you say the postulate introduced by Einstein is incorrect.

So my question to you is

What is your alternative hypothesis and what conclusion (equation) does it come to?

Note that so far c is just a symbol for a constant in the equation

distance = speed x time

It is nothing more than this and at this point has no special significance nor can it descibe the mechanism of travel.

Correction about what I have said the about the wave equation, quoted above.

Let me start from formulating Apparent Source Theory:

The effect of absolute motion of an observer is to create an apparent change in source position relative to the observer.

This means that the effect of absolute motion is only to create an apparent change in the point of light emission (i.e. an apparent change in the past position of the source). Light takes more time to reach an observer absolutely moving away from a light source not because , unlike ether theory, the group velocity of light relative to the observer has changed from c,  but because the point of light emission has apparently moved away from the observer. Therefore, light acts as if it travelled an apparent distance D',  not the actual/physical distance D, where D' = D c / (c - V) . Therefore, the group velocity of light for absolutely moving inertial  observer is constant c , NOT c + - V. This is the accurate model regarding group velocity.

There are two interpretations of group velocity: physical and apparent; I have mentioned this in my opening post in this thread . As stated above the apparent group velocity of light is always constant c for an inertial observer. The physical group velocity of light, however, is variable :      c + - V . The physical group velocity is the velocity measured in the conventional way: by dividing the physical distance travelled in a given interval of time.

It is the apparently constant group velocity interpretation that is fundamental, not the physical variable group velocity of light.

Therefore, fundamentally both the phase velocity and the group velocity of light in vacuum are constant c, in the case of an inertial observer.

The wave equation for a moving observer should satisfy constant phase velocity and constant (apparent)  group velocity of light.

As you pointed out it is impossible to get an equation of the wave function whose phase velocity is c,  but whose group velocity is c + - V.  I just lost sight of the elusive theory ( AST) for a moment .

Suppose that a light source is at rest, emitting light of frequency f. At the instant of light emission the observer was at distance D away from the source, moving away from the source with velocity V. The observer will observe light of frequency   f ' = f e V/c  ,  after a time delay of D / (c - V) .

##### Share on other sites

I have read your papers and the biggest lack I can see is that you haven't understood that physicists in the early years do not understand basic wave mechanics.

You are quite wrong on that aspect.

Please define absolute motion including the vector transformation rules required to keep phase velocity equal to c for all observers.

Unless you can do that I don't see any validity in your theory.

pS mathematics not words.

From what I have read your theory requires you definition of phase velocity being equal to c for all observers. So provide the necessary vector transformation rules required under 3d treatment to produce that requirement.

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

On 9/27/2019 at 12:43 PM, swansont said:

Um, no.

The peaks and troughs are the maxima of the E & M fields of the EM radiation. I don't see how that is "ether thinking"

There are also experiments that rely on these fields existing.

In effect, this view is the same as ether view because it predicts a fringe shift for the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment if you don’t apply length contraction and time dilation.

SRT tacitly, wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that (i.e. to get a null fringe shift). Even with all this, SRT still fails with regard to the MM experiment because of the small fringe shifts observed, such as in the Miller experiments.

SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation.

I think what Einstein eliminated was the universal ether. There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames. Einstein’s inertial reference frames are nothing but ether frames in relative motion. In each of Einstein’s inertial frames, light is treated like ordinary local phenomena, such as sound waves.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lidal said:

In effect, this view is the same as ether view because it predicts a fringe shift for the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment if you don’t apply length contraction and time dilation.

SRT tacitly, wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that (i.e. to get a null fringe shift). Even with all this, SRT still fails with regard to the MM experiment because of the small fringe shifts observed, such as in the Miller experiments.

No. SR has no ether, and predicts no fringe shifts. It doesn't "make up" for anything.

Aether theory, as described in the late 1800s, predicted a speed of 30 km/s through the aether. The M-M experiment excluded that result by a very large margin.

2 hours ago, lidal said:

SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation.

What part of c being invariant assumes an aether?

2 hours ago, lidal said:

I think what Einstein eliminated was the universal ether. There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames. Einstein’s inertial reference frames are nothing but ether frames in relative motion. In each of Einstein’s inertial frames, light is treated like ordinary local phenomena, such as sound waves.

An "aether frame" is an oxymoron, since the aether was the rest frame. As in The Highlander, there can be only one.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lidal said:

SRT tacitly, wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that

Nonsense.

There is (was) a theory called Lorentz Ether Theory that did this. However, as the ether part of the theory was completely irrelevant (it didn't appear anywhere, except as an assumption, and remained completely undetectable by definition) this theory was ignored in favour of SR (Occam's Razor).

2 hours ago, lidal said:

SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation.

You are still ignoring the invariance of the speed of light. Which is the reason for length contraction and time dilation. And has nothing to do with a mythical ether.

3 hours ago, lidal said:

There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames.

If so, can can you show how this is modelled mathematically and how it can be detected experimentally?

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lidal said:

Let me start from formulating Apparent Source Theory:

The effect of absolute motion of an observer is to create an apparent change in source position relative to the observer.

So you are saying that your postulate is that if the light source and the observer are one and the same, there is an apparent change in the zero difference in position between source and observer?

This must lead to my equation for what observer 1 sees to be incorrect.

So what is your version of the 'correct' equation and how may it be tested.

I ask for tests because, to my knowledge, no one has ever observed this effect.

I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2.

8 hours ago, lidal said:

Correction about what I have said the about the wave equation, quoted above.

4 hours ago, lidal said:

SRT tacitly, wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that (i.e. to get a null fringe shift). Even with all this, SRT still fails with regard to the MM experiment because of the small fringe shifts observed, such as in the Miller experiments.

SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation.

I think what Einstein eliminated was the universal ether. There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames. Einstein’s inertial reference frames are nothing but ether frames in relative motion. In each of Einstein’s inertial frames, light is treated like ordinary local phenomena, such as sound waves.

Why are you so hung up on wave motion or the ether ?

Einstein did not use any particular form of motion in SRT.
In it he specifically refutes the ether.

Quote

Einstein 1905

Eaxmples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth realtive to the light medium...................

..............

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superflouus...............and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation.

In fact a contemporaneous paper (The photoelectric effect)  he resurrected Newton's corpuscular theory by proposing the photon.

In fact in that same paragraph he introuces his postulate you have taken issue with,

But it again does not say what to attribute to Einstein.

Quote

SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake..................

Actually this shows you have not read the SRT paper.

because the phenomena you mention (and others) are purely theoretical deductions from Einsteins actual postulates (not your misstatements of them)

It does not make the postulate that the speed of light is constant for all observers

The presentation in the 1905 paper actually deduces  from Einstein's own postulate, given on page 1.

The idea constant for all observers idea came later and has been used since to develop SRT as it leads to easier mathematics.

I will say it again.

There is no requirement in SRT for light to be a form of wave motion.

##### Share on other sites

On 9/23/2019 at 10:51 AM, lidal said:

The new theoretical framework can be seen as a seamless fusion of classical and modern theories: ether theory, emission theory and constancy of the speed of light. Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation. In effect, special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated.

If special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated by your new theoretical framework, how you explain time dilation experimental confirmations (e.g. Hafele–Keating experiment)?

##### Share on other sites

The view count has abruptly dropped from about 3000 per day yesterday to less than 30 per day today. Is this normal ? I think there is some problem.

To Studiot

" I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2 "

Let there be a light source S and an observer O at distance D from S. Both S and O are at rest, so there is no relative motion.

The source emits a light wave

A sin wt

Observer O sees

A' sin w(t - D/c)

The wave equation will be:

- A' sin ( Kx - wt)

Let there be another observer O' who is at the same point as O at the instant of light emission, but moving with relative velocity V away from the source. In this case the absolute velocity of O' is the same as the relative velocity V.

Vabs = V

The question is what is the wave seen by O' ?

Since O'  is in absolute motion, according to AST, there will be an apparent change in the point of light emission ( in other words, an apparent change of past position of the source) relative to (as seen by) O' .  The distance of the apparent source from O'  is:

D ' = D c / ( c - Vabs )

Also, since O' is in motion relative to the source, there will be Doppler effect.

f ' = f e (-V/c)     (  e is base, -V/c is exponent)

Now the wave seen by O' will be :

A'' sin w' (t - D'/c)

= A'' sin ( w't - w' D'/ c)

=  A'' sin ( w' t - K' D' )

where

w' = w e ( - V/ c)  ,  w = 2 pi f  ,  K ' = K e ( - V/ c)

K'=  2 pi / lambda'

Remember that, in this case :

lambda'  = lambda * e ( V / c)   and

f ' = f e ( -V/c)

The virtual wave equation for observer O' will be :

- A'' sin ( K' x' - w' t)

where x' is relative to the apparent source. It can be seen that the virtual phase velocity and the virtual group velocity are both equal to c.

Therefore, for the case of D = 0 (the problem you asked me to solve) , D' = 0 and observer O' will see :

A'' sin (w' t - K' D')  = A'' sin w't

where the light emitted by the source (as seen by an observer close to the source and at rest relative to the source) is:

A sin wt

A, A' and A''  can be assumed to be equal for this discussion.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lidal said:

The view count has abruptly dropped from about 3000 per day yesterday to less than 30 per day today. Is this normal ? I think there is some problem.

It is irrelevant. And not under anyone's control.

##### Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, lidal said:

The view count has abruptly dropped from about 3000 per day yesterday to less than 30 per day today. Is this normal ? I think there is some problem.

To Studiot

" I am still waiting for a mathematical description of the light front surface for observer 2 "

Let there be a light source S and an observer O at distance D from S. Both S and O are at rest, so there is no relative motion.

The source emits a light wave

A sin wt

Observer O sees

A' sin w(t - D/c)

The wave equation will be:

- A' sin ( Kx - wt)

Let there be another observer O' who is at the same point as O at the instant of light emission, but moving with relative velocity V away from the source. In this case the absolute velocity of O' is the same as the relative velocity V.

Vabs = V

The question is what is the wave seen by O' ?

Since O'  is in absolute motion, according to AST, there will be an apparent change in the point of light emission ( in other words, an apparent change of past position of the source) relative to (as seen by) O' .  The distance of the apparent source from O'  is:

D ' = D c / ( c - Vabs )

Also, since O' is in motion relative to the source, there will be Doppler effect.

f ' = f e (-V/c)     (  e is base, -V/c is exponent)

Now the wave seen by O' will be :

A'' sin w' (t - D'/c)

= A'' sin ( w't - w' D'/ c)

=  A'' sin ( w' t - K' D' )

where

w' = w e ( - V/ c)  ,  w = 2 pi f  ,  K ' = K e ( - V/ c)

K'=  2 pi / lambda'

Remember that, in this case :

lambda'  = lambda * e ( V / c)   and

f ' = f e ( -V/c)

The virtual wave equation for observer O' will be :

- A'' sin ( K' x' - w' t)

where x' is relative to the apparent source. It can be seen that the virtual phase velocity and the virtual group velocity are both equal to c.

Therefore, for the case of D = 0 (the problem you asked me to solve) , D' = 0 and observer O' will see :

A'' sin (w' t - K' D')  = A'' sin w't

where the light emitted by the source (as seen by an observer close to the source and at rest relative to the source) is:

A sin wt

A, A' and A''  can be assumed to be equal for this discussion.

Quote

A sin wt

This is in no way consistent either with the very clear and simple scenario I outlined,

Nor is is a possible equation unless the light source was modulated by some sinusoidal signal, something I most definitely did not say.

Furthermore I definitely specified the position of the second observer.

I did not say that there was any separation between the observers.

Quote

and an observer O at distance D from S

and everything that follows is completely and utter rubbish and thoroughly discouraging to any sensible discussion.

Good night.

41 minutes ago, lidal said:

Are you just being plain akward or what?

##### Share on other sites

From what I can tell he is rambling. Particularly since he also stated

Quote

I did not say there was any distance between the observers

Ie no seperation distance  ????

Tell me OP when are you ever going to address direct questions correctly ?  Every response you give leads to more confusion. Sounds like you don't know how to describe your theory.

Your now invoking virtual phase and group velocity but still haven't shown how your keeping the phase velocity equal to c for all observers...

This asked of you by several posters....

Now here is another question for you you specifically stated a wave requires a medium to propogate.

So why does both you phase and group velocities have wave equations ?

$v=\lambda f$

$k=\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}$

$f=\frac{2\pi}{\omega}$

At least you can start with the basic electromagnetic wave equations. You should at least realize in a vacuum you can have any frequency or wavelength as long as $\lambda f=c$

Though if you want the modern method use

Though you would have to admit your phase and group velocity usage is completely wrong in modern terminology usage.

Edited by Mordred

## Create an account

Register a new account