Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the MMX?

[Xinwei Huang]

Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?

 

Please read

http://api.ning.com/files/Hark62hE1uMt2uQHmYnIptCnoMSBmVwR4Gsc1ONqXXZnJOalLs3GDgRoF6fc35dYyOu1ooXfqn0SxtL*iXC4F9NTsZXu-ADT/Apaper.pdf

 

This paper has just been accepted by GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS. Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney, an editor in GED, said to me “It is understandable, and reasonable to publish in GED. Please be aware that GED pages are filled through year 2011,So this will appear in 2012, unless someone withdraws something before then.”

This paper was contributed to the American Physical Society(APS), and reviewed by the editors and reviewers of PRL, PRD and PRA successively, but they can’t point out any flaws. However, they still rejected it for criticizing my past paper which has been published.

They know that this paper will end special theory of relativity and rewrite physics textbook, therefore, they reject it even if there isn’t any flaws.

My contribution experience is in http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang. The editor of PRL rejected my paper. I asked him why, but he didn’t answer. So I contributed it to PRD. The editor of PRD believed it would be more suitable for PRA, so PRD turned to PRA.

Gordon W.F. Drake, the editor of PRA reviewed my paper seriously. He can't answer the little questions in the paper, and didn’t point out any mistakes or give any reasons, but my paper was still rejected finally. He let me appeal to Gene D. Sprouse, chief editor of APS, and asked him to make the decision.

After 70 days research, Gene D. Sprouse appointed Mikhail V. Fedorov to review my paper and give the rejecting reasons. Then Mikhail V. Fedorov rejected my paper with a very funny excuse, which was “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics”. But “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity” has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.” But as for the paper “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” which I wanted to publish, he did’t give any comments.

I reminded that it was Mikhail V. Fedorov’s oversight. He didn’t make any comments on the paper I wanted to publish. So Gordon W.F. Drake asked Gene D. Sprouse to judge again. But Gene D. Sprouse said he reviewed it “responsibly and fairly”. Don’t you believe it is the truth? Probably you don’t believe, but it is the truth.

The reason why they rejected my paper was that it could change people’s opinion about the special theory of relativity. They didn’t like to see this happen.

Followed is my communication with APS. It would be easier for you to know my experience, help you understand my paper.

Please read my paper as well as the record of communication with the editors of APS. I think you will be interested in it.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Dr. Huang,

Your manuscript has been considered. We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Yours sincerely,

Jerome Malenfant

Senior Assistant Editor

Physical Review Letters

Email: prl@ridge.aps.org

Fax: 631-591-4141

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for consideration in Physical Review A.

However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.

As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal. In particular, they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects.

Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.

Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis, "Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40.

Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore, with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake

Editor

Physical Review A

Email: pra@ridge.aps.org

Fax: 631-591-4141

http://pra.aps.org/

and

Rashmi Ray

Senior Assistant Editor

Physical Review D

Email: prd@ridge.aps.org

Fax: 631-591-4141

http://prd.aps.org/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray,

Many thanks for your mail of 29th December 2008, informing me my manuscript was not suitable for publication in PRA in time and giving me specific reasons meanwhile.

I take this opportunity to discuss several natural phenomena with Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but can it prove that the sun revolves around the earth? In addition, stone falls faster than feather, but can it prove that the heavy object falls faster than the light one? I deem that you will say it can not. Because Copernicus and Galileo have told us that such a cognition was false.

If the viewpoint of Copernicus and Galileo were not authorized in the scientific community, do you agree with them?

It’s mostly said that relativistic has been proved by many experimental evidences and there is no clear evidence to suggest it is wrong. For example, when the quality of high-energy particle increases, its lifetime prolongs. That is considered as one of the experimental proofs to prove relativistic. However, Lorenz's theory can explain these phenomena, why these phenomena are not proofs to prove Lorenz's theory? If there were not relativistic, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove Lorenz's theory. What do you think about it?

For example, Ives and Stilwell proved that movement would result in slower time by experiment in 1938. But Ives opposed relativistic all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.

In addition, Michelson-Morley experiment is considered as another proof to testify the relativistic. However, both Michelson and Morley didn’t agree with the viewpoint. They deemed that the experiment could be explained by theory that the earth drags the ethers on its surface.

The differences between the relativistic and Lorenz’s theory are principle of constancy of light velocity and principle of relativity. Only when experimental evidence testifies the two principles, can it be considered as the proof to prove the relativistic.

It has been pointed out that there is none to test the speed of the same light in different inertial systems, among the present experimental evidences which are considered as the proofs to testify principle of constancy of light velocity.

Please consider carefully about the circle fiber issue put forward in my paper. If the speed of light is invariant, will the results be consistent when we analyze it in different reference systems? The persons who support the relativistic can’t explain the issue, including old professors who have taught relativity for several decades. Moreover, the other issues and analysis put forward in my paper are supported by many people. I think if you read my paper and think my questions and analysis carefully, you will consider my questions and analysis fully of novelties, although you may not agree with me.

I think problems independently and put forward my own viewpoint all along. I once put forward a new theory and deduced such formulas in relativity as quality-speed formula, time-speed formula and mass-energy formula, only with two or three steps. It’s much simpler than the deduction process of relativity. It’s my theory that can easily explain GZK knotty problems of cosmic ray. The theory was published in the USA this year and you can read on line: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf,'>http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf, with reviewer’s attitude as follow:

“Use neutrosophy to analyze and remould the special theory of relativity by Huang Xinwei

This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”

Of course, that paper can not represent this one and the reviewer can not represent reviewers of PRA either.

In the end, I beg for your patient and careful consideration on my manuscript. I believe you will change your former attitude.

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

I understand your feelings of disappointment on reading my previous letter of rejection. However, it is important to remember that the special theory of relativity is now over 100 years old, and it has been intensively studied by many authors since then. It has also been subjected to a large number of high-precision experimental tests, and no defect has been found in the predictions of special relativity. Under these circumstances, exceptional evidence is required to overturn a well established theory. It is not sufficient just to show that the same results can be obtained from a different philosophical point of view, because then the paper is about philosophy and not physics. In order to be acceptable for publication, a paper in this area must show that existing theory is not adequate in some way that is experimentally measurable, and then propose a method to remedy the defect. Your paper does not meet these criteria, and so it is not acceptable for publication. It is like saying that Copernicus was also wrong in saying that the earth goes around the sun, but without giving adequate reasons for your claim.

I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the reasons for rejection.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake

Editor

Physical Review A

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Drake,

I am very glad to hear from you and greatly appreciate that you replied me in your hurry time.

I deeply admire your profound knowledge, but I have to figure out that you hold a viewpoint which is the same as many people's views: there are a large number of experiments which have proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which is contrary with it. Therefore, it could be consider wrong only when there are new and conclusive experiments which are contrary with it.

In this regard, what I want to say is that these experiments can not be taken as the evidences of relativistic because other theories can also explain them. Einstein admitted in "Introduction of Special and General Relativity" that Lorenz also explained for all of these facts and experimental results. Lorenz has proved that the results of Michelson-Morley experiment do not contradict Ether Theory.

In recent years, many scientists express different views on the theory of relativity. For example, H. O. G. Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner, figured out that the theory of relativity was nothing more than a knick knack and it obliterated the distinction between science and pseudo-science. J. P. Wesley, a German senior theoretical physicist, said: "The theory of relativity has never been useful." J. G. Bernes, physics professor of Texas University in the U.S., said that the theory of relativity was "a disaster" and it's time to change the blind faith in the theory of relativity. "Physicists' general attitude to the theory of relativity is that they do not understand it but think it shouldn't be wrong because it has been recognized. I acknowledge that I have kept such an attitude until recent years." said by L. Essen, late senior scientist who was once the director of Time and Frequency Department of British National Laboratory. After his research, he finally found the theory of relativity was a contradiction full of loopholes. However, didn't they know that there were a large number of experiments to prove the theory of relativity was correct?

In 1970, Paul Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that the concept of Ether didn't die but it was such a concept that hadn’t been discovered some usefulness yet as long as the basic issue remained unresolved, and that it must be remembered that there was a possibility. In 1979, he showed further that the cosmic background radiation contradicted Einstein's viewpoint, in his report on the meeting in memory of the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's birthday in Princeton in the U.S. In a sense, Lorenz is correct but Einstein is wrong. Why did Michelson and Morley get a null result and why didn't they found the earth's absolute movement? The only explanation is that their technology wasn't advanced enough. However, present technology is more advanced than a century ago. With the modern technology, the existence of absolute movement can be proved.

Twenty years ago, I am also one of the admirers of Einstein. However, after in-depth thinking on the theory of relativity, I gradually thought that it was wrong but Ether Theory may be closer to the truth. I also understood why there were so many people that opposed it in the past 100 years and why the Nobel Prize judges refused to award a prize to Einstein for his theory.

In China, some senior professors said that those who opposed the theory of relativity considered it wrong because they didn't understand it. Accordingly, I put forward my questions but they couldn't answer them. Because these questions weren't written in textbook, they had not though them before.

Those senior professors also said that there were a large number of experiments which had proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which was contrary with it. Therefore, I asked them to answer the question in my paper that whether the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit around the optical fiber. However, they couldn’t answer it.

I deem that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicts the theory of relativity. I also have analyzed the reason in my paper. If you do not agree with me, could you tell me whether they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit? In addition, there were two experiments in my paper both are against the theory of relativity, didn't you see them?

I hope you are able to consider carefully about the questions and whether the Michelson-Morley experiment can prove the principle of constancy of light velocity. It would be better if you can discuss them with your colleagues and the experts who have been studying the relativity theory.

If you can not answer the question, why couldn't you allow the person who can answer it to express a different viewpoint?

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

In your last letter, you asked me to consider your alternative explanation for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by invoking the concept of ether drag. The problem is that one cannot consider just this one experiment in isolation from the many other outstanding successes of the special theory of relativity.

In proposing an alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is incumbent upon you as the author to show that the alternative theory does not lead to contradictions elsewhere. One of the most important examples is the energy levels of atomic hydrogen. These are in precise agreement with experiment when the special theory of relativity is included via the Dirac equation (together with higher-order quantum electrodynamic corrections), but not when they are omitted. If one abolishes the special theory of relativity in favor of a picture involving ether drag, then you must find some other way of restoring agreement between theory and experiment for the energy levels of atomic hydrogen.

Unless you can do so, your proposal is incomplete and cannot be accepted for publication because it leads to a contradiction with the high-precision spectroscopic data for atomic hydrogen. You must similarly take into account the many other tests, such as the relativistic dynamics of particles in high energy accelerators, and the conversion of mass into energy. Particle accelerators would not work if the relativistic dynamics did not work correctly. It is not sufficient just to quote famous people who speculated about alternative theories. None of their speculations included ether drag as a serious alternative.

I might suggest that you submit your paper to a journal that specializes in publishing speculative ideas.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake

Editor

Physical Review A

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear professor,

I am very glad to hear from you. Many thanks for your careful consideration and valuable suggestions on my paper. They are very significant for me.

As far as I know, many physicists have realized that the theory of relativity has serious problems, but why are they still unwilling to give up their attitudes to the theory? Because they feel that they will be unable to explain these phenomena without the theory.

In fact, this thought is not entirely correct. The issue has been talked about in the first mail to you. Nevertheless, these phenomena can be explained by Lorenz's theory. If there were not the theory of relativity, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove the Lorenz's theory.

For instance, the energy levels of atomic hydrogen were accurately measured by Ives and Stilwell in 1938. This issue has also been talked about in the first mail. Ives opposed the theory of relativity all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.

Lorenz agreed with the Ether theory. His theory, like the theory of relativity, is also not perfect. In addition, I can put forward my own theory, which can as well explain these phenomena which can be explained by Einstein's or Lorenz's theory. More over, my explanation is much simpler than theirs. This issue was mentioned in the first letter to you, but you could have not noticed.

Please read the paper I sent to you today. The paper has been published in the U.S. with the reviewer’s evaluation as follow: “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”

Of course, my theory is not perfect either and it needs continuous improvement. However, I feel that if you read my paper and mail carefully, you will consider my viewpoint with many fresh ideas even if you do not agree with it.

I believe that we are far from the truth, but it also waits for us to explore continually.

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

Your paper has been rejected. Further consideration can only be given if you decide to exercise the option, available under this journal's Editorial Policies (copy enclosed), of appealing the decision to reject the manuscript. Adjudication of such an appeal is based on the version of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at this stage.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon W.F. Drake

Editor

Physical Review A

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,

Please pardon my presumption in writing to you. My paper was rejected by editors of PRL and PRA without any reason, so all I can do is to beg an appeal for a fair and just treatment to my paper.

The title of my paper is “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” with No. LY11626A.

At first, I submitted my paper to PRL but received a rejection without any reason. I asked them twice for reasons, but they did not reply to me. So I switched to PRD, but they transferred my paper to PRA.

Gordon W. F. Drake, an editor of PRA, rejected my paper on the same day of receiving. You can check it with the reasons given by him, as well as my response. After I refuted his reasons twice, I requested him to answer my question via special theory of relativity. However, he could neither answer my question nor point out any error in my paper, but rather giving me a new reason. Furthermore, that reason also has been refuted by me, and he accepted my paper for the moment. Unfortunately, after a few days and without the experts' review, he gave me his third rejection without any reason.

Please read my paper which is novel and important and will reverse the wrong awareness of past and prompt people to change their views on the special theory of relativity via re-analysis of the past experiments. I think that is the main reason that why my paper was rejected by PRL and PRA. Another important reason may be that I am not an influential international professor. I think it is unfair and unjust.

It will hinder the development of science. If in such a way, Copernicus' paper doubting the theory of center of the earth and Einstein's special theory of relativity would not be published, because their papers would change people's awareness and they were not influential international professor at that time.

I request for your careful consideration on the questions and analysis in my paper, and you will find it is an important paper which only occurs once every 100 years. If the paper were published as early as 100 years, Einstein would have to give up his special theory of relativity, Planck would also rectify his evaluation to Einstein and Michelson would say that the special theory of relativity wasn’t supported by his experiment.

It's worried that it will not be able to explain the past experiments without the special theory of relativity, but there is really no need for that fear. If there isn't the special theory of relativity, those experiments will be considered as the experimental evidences of Lorentz's theory. Even if there isn't Lorentz's theory, a substitute will be put forward. I have a paper with the title of "Applying Neutrosophy to Analyze and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity" published in the U.S. in accordance with the requirements of PRA.

I believe you will treat it fairly and justly.

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang

I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background. The 5D substitution of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not a theory at all. The absolute time is something mythical rather than well defined and justified, as well as all suggested relations for the velocity with respect to this absolute time. The criticism of STR in the paper is based mainly on what the author calls "paradoxes" of STR and on mentioning some problems of the modern astrophysics which are interpreted as contradicting to STR. The latter is not evident or proved to be true, and cannot be proved by a simple citation of sayings of some scientists. As for the "paradoxes", they are mostly not related to STR and they are not paradoxes at all. In particular, the author is worried mostly about masses acquired by particles during their acceleration and occurring owing to the Einstein's relation E=mc^2. According to the author's formulation, if a particle is accelerated and if the increase of its energy is interpreted as the increase of a mass, then in the rest-frame of this particle other objects will be seen as accelerated and increasing their energies and masses. As these other objects were not affected by any forces, increase of their energy seen from the particle's rest-frame is considered as an STR paradox. But in fact, this effect is not a specific feature of STR. It occurs even in the case of a starting train at a railroad. For a person sitting on a bench in the train and watching in a window for what's going on at the platform, all objects will seem being accelerated and, hence, increasing their energies whereas in the platform-frame all these objects remain at rest. Is this a paradox? Of course it is not, but even if some people can think this is a paradox, the effect is not related to STR. Two comments more. 1) STR is valid only for inertial frames, i.e., frames moving with respect to each other with constant velocities. Rigorously, processes of acceleration are beyond STR. 2) In STR the relation E=mc^2 is simply a definition of the relativistic mass m. The latter does not bear in itself any additional information compared to the energy E. Relativity of the concept of kinetic energy is illustrated quite well in the above described "railroad paradox", and it's hardly surprising at all. A simple substitution of the word "energy" by the word "mass" hardly adds any elements of a surprise to the fact of relativity of these physical quantities. Discussion of other "paradoxes" could be continued in a similar way. But it's hardly reasonable because all this leads to the conclusion formulated in the very beginning of the report: the paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics.

Mikhail V. Fedorov

Editorial Board Member

Physical Review A

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear professor Gordon W.F. Drake,

I appreciate that you submitted my appeal to professor Gene D. Sprouse. You are fair and impartial. I know that it is very difficult to issue my paper, as it challenges the mainstream theory. It is also very difficult for the editorial department to make the decision to publish it. I understand you.

I do not know what Professor Gene D. Sprouse's opinion is about my paper. However, it is obvious that Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not understand my paper.

Please note that I would like to publish paper LY11626A - Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? rather than Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity.

Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity has been published in the United States. Please see <<a href="http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf">http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf>;. The comments of reviewers are:

This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.

Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not make any evaluation on my papers LY11626A. I would like to know if Mikhail V . Fedorov Professor can tell us his opinion about LY11626A. Can the two beams return to the starting point O at the same time?

If Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov can not tell us, on what ground he refused my paper? Why he refuse to listen to different opinions?

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

I have reviewed the file concerning this manuscript which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your

paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A, and resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor in Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision.

On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.

Yours sincerely,

Gene D. Sprouse

Editor in Chief

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,

I'm very grateful for your focus on my paper.

If I were editor, you were the author. If you sent me paper A, I refused your paper A before giving any comments on the papers but explaining that paper B is not suitable for publication. Do you think it is responsible and fair?

Now editor refused my paper Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? before giving any comments on my papers, because my another paper is not suitable for publication. Is this responsible and fair?

No one can point out any defects in the paper, but no one agree to publish this paper. That's the same as what I encountered in China: no one can answer my simple question and no one can point out any flaws of my papers. They said, we admit that we can not answer your question, but we do not recognize that the theory of relativity is wrong.

This reminds me of a Danish fairy tale: the Emperor's new clothes are beautiful, which only smart talent is able to see. Ministers have praised this new dress is so beautiful, and dare not admit that he can not see any pieces of this new clothes. Finally, someone shouted that God, the emperor is wearing nothing. Ministers can not agree with him, but said that the person was not smart.

Nobel Prize winner H.O.G.Alfven regarded the theory of relativity as "a small display," "deny the line between the science and pseudo-science." German senior theoretical physicist and doctor J.P.Wesley said: "the theory of relativity does never work." Does it? I raised such a simple question, no one can tell the answer. What is the use of the theory of relativity? If some people ask the question to you , how do you answer them?

This letter is my final appeal to you. I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.

Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov criticized that my another paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics, which, however, has been published. It is not the paper I would like to publish now. Is it ridiculous that on the grounds of that to refuse to publish this one? Is it convincing? Furthermore, without the theory of relativity, I can put forward my own theories to explain the phenomenon that the theory of relativity explains. Can professor Mikhail V. Fedorov do it?

You can also see that no one can point out any error in my paper, which means that my paper is correct. Why can not the right papers be published?

I know the real reason my paper having been refused: a professor, has been for decades, told the students that Michelson-Morley experiment is the experimental basis of the principle of constancy of light. Now, there are papers said that was not the case. Can the professor agree to publish such a paper?

Although the majority of professors are unwilling to recognize the textbooks are wrong, the development of the history of science tells us that the truth will overcome the fallacy. Although the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the issuance of Copernicus's book, it can not save the wrong Geocentric Theory. Aristotle's followers evict Galileo out of the University of Pisa, but it can not save the wrong theory of heavy objects falling faster than the light objects.

We commend the Copernicus, Galileo's courage to challenge the authority of error theory, despise those conservative-minded people who suppress Copernicus, Galileo. However, when Copernicus, Galileo's papers are sent to the Physical Review, will you release it?

More and more people have realized that the theory of relativity is wrong. I believe that my paper can also help you to realize this. If you persist in refusing to publish my paper, I will contribute it to other journals. I believe that eventually there will be an open-minded journal to accept it, create a sensation, and rewrite physics.

At that time, how the peoples will comment on American Physical Society having refused my paper? Is the principle of the American Physical Society to impede its development but promote the development of physics?

I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.

Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,

The decision of Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, Editor in Chief of the American Physical Society, regarding your paper LY11626A "Can the principle of constancy of light velocity..." was transmitted to you via hard copy letter on June 9th. Dr. Sprouse's decision, to confirm the rejection of your paper, is final. No further consideration of the paper can be made. You may want to consider submitting the paper to another journal.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Halsted

Special Assistant to the Editor in Chief

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editors,

Although my paper was rejected ultimately, I still appreciate those people including editors in PRL, PRD, and PRA and Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, etc. You carefully reviewed my paper. I highly appreciate your serious attitude. In China, it is impossible for my paper can win such treatment or reach the hands of the Editor-in-Chief of Chinese Physical Society.

Although you do not agree to publish my paper, you can not point out any problems of the paper, which is tantamount to that my paper is correct. This is the best assessment of my paper. I still thank you for the review process, which makes me more confident of the paper.

I understand the reasons that I can not make the paper published. If I were the editor, I find it difficult to decide to publish such a paper. I will apply to other publications. Please delete my paper.

Thanks again that American Physical Society carefully reviewed my paper, and thanks for each person reviewed this paper.

Sincerely,

Xinwei Huang

[ajb]

The journal "Galilean Electrodynamics" is not considered as a mainstream physics journal. You should not want to publish there.

 

It looks like the editors of the other journals you have submitted to have given you good reasons why your "paper" is not of the standard and quite importantly is not of the correct nature to be published in a physics journal.

 

I have only had a brief look at your paper and I see why they were unable to publish it.

[Xinwei Huang]

Dear ajb,

Thank you for your reply.

Mainstream physics journals do not receive the papers against the theory of relativity, but the Galilean Electrodynamics receive.

APS rejects my paper, they know that this paper will end special theory of relativity and rewrite physics textbook, therefore, they reject it even if there isn't any flaws.

Please carefully read my paper and think carefully about this question：whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time.

Please think carefully about why the APS editors can not answer this question and pointed out that any errors.

 

Best wishes

[ajb]

Mainstream physics journals do not receive the papers against the theory of relativity, but the Galilean Electrodynamics receive.

 

If you could show a flaw in relativity then it would get published. The thing is mathematically it is all well established and has been experimentally verified many times both directly and indirectly.

 

Your claims that they will reject ground breaking papers is ridiculous. Any journal would love to publish such papers.

 

 

On your paper, I cannot see where you calculated anything. Thus the lack of interest.

[swansont]

Dear ajb,

Thank you for your reply.

Mainstream physics journals do not receive the papers against the theory of relativity, but the Galilean Electrodynamics receive.

APS rejects my paper, they know that this paper will end special theory of relativity and rewrite physics textbook, therefore, they reject it even if there isn't any flaws.

 

Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal that specifically publishes anti-mainstream physics. Relativity works, and is experimentally confirmed.

 

SR follows directly from the postulate of invariant speed of light, and if a thought experiment shows a contradiction, it is because of an error in the thought experiment. A journal would reject such a paper out of hand, much like the patent office would reject an application for a perpetual motion machine. It's not worth the effort to find the flaw and point it out.

[vuquta]

Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal that specifically publishes anti-mainstream physics. Relativity works, and is experimentally confirmed.

 

SR follows directly from the postulate of invariant speed of light, and if a thought experiment shows a contradiction, it is because of an error in the thought experiment. A journal would reject such a paper out of hand, much like the patent office would reject an application for a perpetual motion machine. It's not worth the effort to find the flaw and point it out.

 

Wow, this means SR is a fact of nature and not a theory.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You can also see that no one can point out any error in my paper, which means that my paper is correct. Why can not the right papers be published?

I know the real reason my paper having been refused: a professor, has been for decades, told the students that Michelson-Morley experiment is the experimental basis of the principle of constancy of light. Now, there are papers said that was not the case. Can the professor agree to publish such a paper?

 

MMX is consistent with Ritz's theory of light. It is a common misconception that it proves the light postulate that light moves through the vacuum of space at one speed.

 

Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[6] However it also led to several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

One such attempt is known as the Emission Hypothesis (or the ballistic theory of light), and was developed partly by Walther Ritz (C&N p.353). According to this theory, light behaves like bullets shot from a gun, its speed with respect to the source being a universal constant and independent of any ether. This idea is consistent with the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many others.

http://laser.phys.ualberta.ca/~egerton/specrel3.htm

 

Modern Physics/Michelson-Morley Experiment

Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Physics:Michelson-Morley_Experiment

 

 

This rules out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory of light propagation, according to which the speed of light is the vector sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

 

 

This paper shows emission theory is consistent with SR.*

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0512/0512036v1.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

There are tests from moving light sources that demonstrate light moves through space at one speed.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

 

 

 

 

So, are you trying to prove light is not measured c in a frame between the emission point and the reception point or are you trying to prove c is not an absolute contant speed in the vacuum of space?

 

 

 

One last comment, if your proposal is correct, you should be able to force LT into a contradiction using it. Hence, if your thought experiment really does prove the inconsistancy of SR, you should be able to translate it into some kind of mathematical contradiction within the theory.

Edited March 23, 2010 by vuquta
Consecutive posts merged.

[ajb]

Wow, this means SR is a fact of nature and not a theory.

 

The usual misunderstanding of what a theory is and how it relates to nature.

 

[swansont]

MMX is consistent with Ritz's theory of light.

 

We went through this already. The Ritz theory is falsified because of the Sagnac effect. You agreed. Ergo, one cannot use the Ritz theory as support for anything — it has been falsified. End of story.

 

And that's an applicable theme here — an alternative to SR must explain all of the phenomena that we have observed, which are all consistent with SR. If it fails to explain anything, or is actually wrong, it is insufficient.

[vuquta]

The usual misunderstanding of what a theory is and how it relates to nature.

 

 

You misunderstood me.

 

This was the statement I was talking about.

SR follows directly from the postulate of invariant speed of light, and if a thought experiment shows a contradiction, it is because of an error in the thought experiment.

I do not agree with it and it implies SR is a fact and can never be refuted by any thought experiment ever.

 

Is this your position also regarding SR?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We went through this already. The Ritz theory is falsified because of the Sagnac effect. You agreed. Ergo, one cannot use the Ritz theory as support for anything — it has been falsified. End of story.

 

And that's an applicable theme here — an alternative to SR must explain all of the phenomena that we have observed, which are all consistent with SR. If it fails to explain anything, or is actually wrong, it is insufficient.

 

You fail to understand what I am saying.

 

I DID NOT say Ritz/s theory is true. I have NEVER indicated that I believe in Ritz's theory. In fact, I wrote:

There are tests from moving light sources that demonstrate light moves through space at one speed.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...g-source_tests

 

It is clear this is inconsistent with Ritz's ballistic theory.

 

I only pointed out the fact that MMX cannot disprove Ritz's theory.

 

 

In Ritz's theory of light, light is always measured c between the emission point in the frame and the reception point because the light speed matches the uniform motion of the frame.

 

The velocity v_ is the velocity of the source and v_(t − r/c) is the velocity of the source at the moment of emission. Equation (10) describes an expanding sphere whose center is no longer at rest in the coordinate system; if the source were to continue to move uniformly with velocity v_, it would remain the center of the sphere. This geometrical description was favored by Ritz. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein1905.pdf

 

 

Here check it out. SR also says the moving frame will remain the center of the light sphere. That is interesting.

 

Anyway, as to the OP, I was simply pointing out he will get nowhere trying to disprove anything about SR using MMX.

 

That was my whole point.

Edited March 23, 2010 by vuquta
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

I only pointed out the fact that MMX cannot disprove Ritz's theory.

 

Is the OP trying to disprove Ritz's theory?

[ajb]

You misunderstood me.

 

This was the statement I was talking about.

SR follows directly from the postulate of invariant speed of light, and if a thought experiment shows a contradiction, it is because of an error in the thought experiment.

I do not agree with it and it implies SR is a fact and can never be refuted by any thought experiment ever.

 

Is this your position also regarding SR?

 

 

It is a fact that relativity (as special or general) is a major ingredient in our best physical theories. The standard model of particle physics and models in astrophysics have both been tested to huge degrees of accuracy. This has shown relativity to be indispensable in our understanding of the universe. I believe this is the only way relativity (or any other physical principles, ideas and constructions) can be understood as a fact or not.

 

How do you see the word "fact"?

 

I don't think anything can really be refuted by thought experiment. They are useful in gaining insight for sure. Your thinking could be wrong. Nothing will beat a proper calculation apart from experimental evidence.

 

If you are asking if I believe that general relativity is the final word on space-time structure, then the answer is no. Also, people are working on the idea that Lorentz invariance (which is what we are really talking about here) may be broken at high enough energy scales. This I find interesting, and should read up on.

[swansont]

It is a fact that relativity (as special or general) is a major ingredient in our best physical theories. The standard model of particle physics and models in astrophysics have both been tested to huge degrees of accuracy. This has shown relativity to be indispensable in our understanding of the universe. I believe this is the only way relativity (or any other physical principles, ideas and constructions) can be understood as a fact or not.

 

IOW, SR is a fact because it agrees with observation. That comparison is the only way to tell if a theory is valid or not.

[ajb]

IOW, SR is a fact because it agrees with observation. That comparison is the only way to tell if a theory is valid or not.

 

I am a little worried about how we should use the word "fact". Theories are good if they relate well to nature, and this is to some extend dependant on what we define as acceptable. If a theory is "good" then it is a "fact".

 

A good example here is Newtonian mechanics. It is a fact that Newtonian mechanics is a good theory when describing many aspects of mechanical engineering (say). So, Newtonian mechanics is a fact. But we also know of situations where it is not a good theory, say for a basis of atomic theory. (Again, it is up to us to decide if it is good or not, but it is generally accepted that the discrepancy between observation of atoms and predictions based on Newtonian physics is unacceptable).

 

Maybe I worry too much.

[vuquta]

Is the OP trying to disprove Ritz's theory?

 

I can't tell.

 

He seems to be trying to prove light speed is not a constant.

 

But, I do not knows what he means by this. If he is trying to claim it is not a constant in the vacuum of space, then that would go against many experiments and he would need to explain why these experiments are wrong.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It is a fact that relativity (as special or general) is a major ingredient in our best physical theories. The standard model of particle physics and models in astrophysics have both been tested to huge degrees of accuracy. This has shown relativity to be indispensable in our understanding of the universe. I believe this is the only way relativity (or any other physical principles, ideas and constructions) can be understood as a fact or not.

 

How do you see the word "fact"?

 

I don't think anything can really be refuted by thought experiment. They are useful in gaining insight for sure. Your thinking could be wrong. Nothing will beat a proper calculation apart from experimental evidence.

 

If you are asking if I believe that general relativity is the final word on space-time structure, then the answer is no. Also, people are working on the idea that Lorentz invariance (which is what we are really talking about here) may be broken at high enough energy scales. This I find interesting, and should read up on.

 

I am not sure about your thought exeriment idea.

 

After all, one day SR will be replaced as a theory in which case someone will think up a thought experiment against it and then possibly peform it.

 

Othewise, it is a fact. A fact to me is a theory perfectly models reality and therefore cannot ever be disproven.

 

I do not think humans are there yet, if ever.

 

Nothing will beat a proper calculation apart from experimental evidence.

 

I agree on a proper calculation.

 

I have a question, assume light is emitted at t=0 and a frame clock elapses r/c, how far has light traveled in the frame?

[swansont]

After all, one day SR will be replaced as a theory in which case someone will think up a thought experiment against it and then possibly peform it.

 

Not possibly. A theory that supplants relativity will have to be experimentally conformed, and explain all of the effects that relativity explains. And any thought experiment that contradicts it will be based on something other than SR. SR cannot contradict itself; absent a physical experiment, it is simply math.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am a little worried about how we should use the word "fact". Theories are good if they relate well to nature, and this is to some extend dependant on what we define as acceptable. If a theory is "good" then it is a "fact".

 

I go with Gould's definition

 

In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[vuquta]

Not possibly. A theory that supplants relativity will have to be experimentally conformed, and explain all of the effects that relativity explains. And any thought experiment that contradicts it will be based on something other than SR. SR cannot contradict itself; absent a physical experiment, it is simply math.

 

Yea, a theory that replaces SR would need to be consistent with current results.

 

I just do not think any science theory is at the point of being a fact.

 

And, you cannot say SR cannot contradict itself. That is similar to the halting problem.

 

It may simply be the case the contradiction has not been thought up or the like.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not possibly. A theory that supplants relativity will have to be experimentally conformed, and explain all of the effects that relativity explains. And any thought experiment that contradicts it will be based on something other than SR. SR cannot contradict itself; absent a physical experiment, it is simply math.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I go with Gould's definition

 

In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

Now, see, sure the apple will fall. But, there have been and currently are disputed explanations with GR being the most used. But, it is not the final answer.

 

Improving a theory does not imply the apple does not fall, but that it falls and everything else is also explained.

[Xinwei Huang]

Hello, everyone!

 

Please think about this issue.

MMX tells us that in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.

However, in zhe circle around the planet, the light back and forth dos not spent equal time?

Rigorous thinking people will not easily come to this conclusion.

Two way time transfer experiment tells us that we can not detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution. This means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.

Please seriously consider this issue!

Please think carefully about this question：whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time.

Please think carefully about why the APS editors can not answer this question and pointed out that any errors.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

[vuquta]

Hello, everyone!

 

Please think about this issue.

MMX tells us that in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.

However, in zhe circle around the planet, the light back and forth dos not spent equal time?

Rigorous thinking people will not easily come to this conclusion.

Two way time transfer experiment tells us that we can not detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution. This means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.

Please seriously consider this issue!

Please think carefully about this question：whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time.

Please think carefully about why the APS editors can not answer this question and pointed out that any errors.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

 

You do not get it. MMX does not show that.

 

The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment

R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time”, Phys. Rev. 42 400–418 (1932).

This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001°C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the Earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests

 

There are two different arm lengths.

 

Two different arm lengths with a common output with null results is not measuring speed, it is measuring a constant frequency.

 

You cant use MMX to prove anything about a constant speed of light.

[Xinwei Huang]

Dear vuquta,

You have misunderstood my meaning.

MMX tells us that the speed of light in all directions are equal. That is in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.

In addition, two way time transfer experiment tells us that in the ground reference system we can detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's rotation. Electromagnetic waves back and forth between China and Japan, the difference in time of about 90ns.

Why can not we detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution? It should be about 6000ns. Some people tried to explain that it should not be detected, but this means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.

Please seriously consider this issue. Thanks!

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

[swansont]

Why can not we detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution? It should be about 6000ns. Some people tried to explain that it should not be detected, but this means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.

 

6000 ns is wrong. The phase shift is given by 4Aw/c^2, and the angular frequency is ~356 times smaller for revolution; the area is that encompassed by the path of the photons and is the same for both effects. The effect for rotation is just over 200 ns, so revolution will be less than a nanosecond.

[vuquta]

Dear vuquta,

You have misunderstood my meaning.

MMX tells us that the speed of light in all directions are equal. That is in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.

In addition, two way time transfer experiment tells us that in the ground reference system we can detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's rotation. Electromagnetic waves back and forth between China and Japan, the difference in time of about 90ns.

Why can not we detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution? It should be about 6000ns. Some people tried to explain that it should not be detected, but this means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.

Please seriously consider this issue. Thanks!

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

 

I have considered MMX and the constant speed of light.

 

MMX is consistent with Ritz's theory which is not a constant speed of light.

 

I showed you many links.

 

I would assume you would consider this.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

6000 ns is wrong. The phase shift is given by 4Aw/c^2, and the angular frequency is ~356 times smaller for revolution; the area is that encompassed by the path of the photons and is the same for both effects. The effect for rotation is just over 200 ns, so revolution will be less than a nanosecond.

 

btw, that thread you locked, i never posted anything like that here.

 

If so, can you explain?

[Xinwei Huang]

Dear swansont ,

 

You are wrong.

If L = 2πR, then Δt = 2vL / (c ^ 2 - v ^ 2) ≈ 4Aω / c ^ 2.

For the revolution A is the area of the Earth's orbits.

Please re-think carefully.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear vuquta,

 

I think you do not carefully read my paper so you do not understand what I am trying to say.

Please carefully read my paper.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

[vuquta]

Dear swansont ,

 

You are wrong.

If L = 2πR, then Δt = 2vL / (c ^ 2 - v ^ 2) ≈ 4Aω / c ^ 2.

For the revolution A is the area of the Earth's orbits.

Please re-think carefully.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear vuquta,

 

I think you do not carefully read my paper so you do not understand what I am trying to say.

Please carefully read my paper.

 

Best Regards

Xinwei Huang

 

I read your paper.

 

I posted this in another forum as you are dumping this everywhere.

 

Carefully read my comments.

 

 

 

 

I read RPenner's attack on this poster.

 

Rpenner claimed Sagnac. That effect is local to the measuring device and the rotation.

 

This poster is claiming a distant planet is rotating and "delivering light pulses" to earth.

 

This is called planetary aberration combined with light aberration.

 

This is well documented except there is some question on the location of the planet in my mind.

 

In any event Rpenner's statements have nothing to do with this post.

 

In addition this poster is attempting to equate a constant frequency of light to a constant speed of light.

 

It is also well documented these two are not logically equivalent.

[swansont]

Dear swansont ,

 

You are wrong.

If L = 2πR, then Δt = 2vL / (c ^ 2 - v ^ 2) ≈ 4Aω / c ^ 2.

For the revolution A is the area of the Earth's orbits.

 

 

No, it's not.

 

If it were, neither time synchronization via satellite nor GPS would work the way they do.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

btw, that thread you locked, i never posted anything like that here.

 

If so, can you explain?

 

Yes, you have posted the simultaneous light spheres before. You can check all of your posts or threads started in your profile.

 

Do not hijack this thread any further with this discussion

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We can rewrite 4Aω /c^2 by substituting v = ωr, and A = πr^2, and see that the Sagnac effect should be linear in r. We know that the Sagnac effect is a deviation from SR because we are in a non-inertial frame. If the Area (A) is the orbital area, then this effect should grow as the path radius becomes larger, at constant v. But as r grows larger, the path traveled in a time t become more approximately linear; a straight line is equivalent to a circle of infinite radius. The implication of which is that the Sagnac effect becomes larger as the motion more approximates an inertial frame, which is contrary to both the concept and to experiment.

 

The area is the region enclosed by the photon travel.

[Xinwei Huang]

 

This poster is claiming a distant planet is rotating and "delivering light pulses" to earth.

 

 

Dear vuquta,

I feel you completely misunderstood my paper.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Dear swansont ,

Can you tell me that the light circle around the Earth orbits, there is no Sagnac effect?