Curt Weinstein 20-Sep-15
I am going to do what Einstein didn’t do! Yes, I am talking about physics. While you may think that such a statement is presumptuous, it certainly is not, for I am going to show you my train of thoughts. Thus, you will be able easily to tell where I went wrong, which is quite different from the physics that Einstein presented.
Albert (Einstein) and Neils (Bohr) argued about the nature of physics. Topics great and small were discussed. I have seen alternative explanations to the Copenhagen way of categorizing events (i.e., Quantum Mechanics, QM). I have prepared an alternative explanation to Special Relativity (SR). I have left various Internet Sites up, which do not fully or correctly explain my current thought. Those sites in tandem present my train of thought.
I am not against Albert. I merely disagree with his theory of Special Relativity. I like his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect. I have nothing to say against his Bose-Einstein Statistics. I feel that Einstein was a genius; I also feel that geniuses can make mistakes. It is just harder for we non-geniuses to make sense of the matter when a genius, such as Einstein, presents a theory.
On this site, http://brokenelevator.weebly.com/, I list the critical postulates on which Special Relativity (SR) either stands or falls. These two postulates support Newtonian (traditional) physics:
(P1:) The time interval between two events does not depend on the movement of the reference body.
(P2:) The distance between two events does not depend on the motion of the reference body.
Einstein rejected both P1 and P2 in favor of P3; the two sets ({P1,P2} and {P3}) are not compatible.
(P3:) The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (“c”, about 3(10^10) cm/s).
P3 had much support. Typically, when one cites examples that support postulates 1 and 2, the relativist (i.e., the person who supports Einstein’s Special Relativity) responds that at relativistically slow speeds, that event may seem to be true, but to see the effects of SR, you must use fast speeds (nearer to c). Of course, they then cite one of more fast moving events that support SR. I am going to list and to evaluate critically five events that are purported to support SR.
If I may, I would like a short digression. I should point out that I had used the flavor of the relativists against them, touting the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (RBE) (http://brokenelevator.weebly.com/) . Although that effect may only exist in my mind (although I think it true!), it is hard to prove rigorously because whenever SR would predict some relevant event, the RBE would predict the same event (but for a different reason). I felt that when you want to disprove something, you need to show a difference (even though I like my explanation better). Otherwise, it comes down to semantics (meanings). Consider: He dropped the pole because he had butter fingers. In contrast: He dropped the pole because it was greased. Though one puts the blame here and the other there, the pole was dropped because of a lack of expected friction. Likewise, I stopped pushing the RBE, for (simply put) it was merely an alternative expression for a lack of interaction.
The five phenomena that I used to support SR are (http://pertrruyongcurt.weebly.com/) :
1. Radioactive particles created in the upper atmosphere do not live long enough to reach the Earth under Newton’s physics. With Special Relativity, however, time and distance are changed; the particles do reach the Earth.
2. Further, the GPS system that guides cars to an address uses Special Relativity.
3. Additionally, light from a star reaches the Earth, and the angle can be explained by Special Relativity.
4. Lights from a double star reach the Earth at the same speed, even though one comes from the receding star and the other from the approaching star.
5. Further, Michelson and Morley (M&M) performed a set of experiments, all of which show that the speed of light does not differ when sent with and against the hypothetical aether.
In light of the five observations listed above, I point to the reasonableness of the following conclusion: “Thus, the speed of light on Earth is a constant, even though the Earth spins on its axis, revolves around the Sun, and is dragged through the Universe following the Sun. There is more support for Special Relativity than there is for many other phenomena. I rest my case for light traveling at a constant speed, no matter what.” Of course, I do not believe that the quote is true, but we can see why others did.
First, let’s consider those particles made in the upper atmosphere that somehow reach Earth’s surface (see 1). There is some reason to suspect that they may not really support Special Relativity (for example, consider the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (http://brokenelevator.weebly.com/)). Maybe they do, however. Consider the case of radio waves (Beckmann, Petr. Einstein Plus Two (1987) The Golem Press, Boulder, Colorado). A radio station, on Earth, broadcasts a signal that shoots up to the effective height in the ionosphere where it bounces and finds the Earth some distance away. Using the speed of light in air, the time of transmission, and the distance between broadcast and reception, we can calculate the effective height that the radio waves reach. Except that, there is no signal at the effective height! What really happens is that the radio waves shoot up to a lower height, bounce around for a while, and then shoot back to Earth. Might not something similar happen regarding the decaying particles? After all, the particles are not stamped with the height of their creation. Maybe yes, maybe no – who knows from what height they come? Conclusion, the support remains, but it is questioned. Read on and see whether you want to believe that radioactive particles that reach Earth are created at the “effective height” to support Special Relativity.
Second (see 2), we have the Global Positioning System (GPS). It uses Special Relativity, and it seems to work very well. I use it in my car, and I am told the military uses it for missile strikes. Wang, however, has shown that the Special-Relativity branch of the GPS is irrelevant (Wang, Ruyong. Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation – Measuring Speed Directly. Proceeding of the IAIN World Congress in association with the U.S. ION Annual Meeting, 26-28 June 2000, San Diego, CA.) The GPS works using light (electromagnetic) signals under (what comes to be) Newtonian arithmetic. In fact, Wang suggests that near the Earth that the light is entrained (my words, his concept). In fact, Wang may yet believe that Special Relativity is correct usually; it just is not necessary for the GPS. I differ somewhat. I believe that Special Relativity is not correct as proposed by Einstein.
Light from a star evidences aberration (re: 3). Aberration is a somewhat technical term. What I mean is that the light from the star (at speed c, but taken as a velocity vector – it has a direction) plus the velocity vector of the Earth (as it revolves around the Sun) explain the angle that the star is seen from Earth. A more complete discussion is found athttp://relativelynot.weebly.com/luminiferous-aether.html. Special Relativity can also be used to get (almost) the same answer; however, simple vector addition should be chosen over Special Relativity according to Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor is what science uses to decide issues. It says we choose the simplest explanation. I conclude that there is no reason to accept Special Relativity when simple vector addition explains.
Fourth, we shoot down the argument from the double star (see 4 above). If there is any mass (e.g., from gas) between the Earth and the double star, the two lights will each be captured and travel at the same speed. Even if we observe the light from the surface of the Earth (so light goes through the gaseous atmosphere), the two lights will surely travel at the same speed. Air affects the speed of light (light travels in air at somewhat less than c). Therefore, the double star provides no evidence! Of course, we can use this argument for the experiments of M&M, too.
Fifth (re: 5), Michelson and Morley (M&M) ran a set of experiments. First, a word about swimming in a river. Swimming across a river and back to the same spot takes ACROSS time. Swimming the same distance (as across and back) but instead heading down the river and up the river takes UP time. For a constant-speed swimmer, UP is greater than ACROSS, except when the river’s flow speed is zero. M&M shot light up and down the river of the hypothetical aether, and then shot light across and back the hypothetical river of the aether. Of course, they couldn’t tell which way the river of aether was flowing; so they shot light in all different directions (with the second arm being shot at right angles). They found that the river of aether was traveling at zero, which wasn’t interesting to anyone. Who wants an aether that doesn’t flow? Other’s took the non-flowing of aether as evidence that the aether didn’t exist. After all, if the aether didn’t exist, it wouldn’t flow. Einstein and company took the zero flow of aether to mean the aether did not exist. Of course, if gravity were the aether, gravity would not be flowing relative to the lights of M&M. Gravity is stuck to the Earth. As Beckmann had said: light in gravity is like sound in air. Gravity is the aether, for it explains the null results of M&M. But is gravity really the aether?
Is gravity the aether? It is there when we need it. Gravity comes from (is associated with) mass. Around here mass comes from atoms (not much plasma, as I look about). I note that water waves travel through water; compressive air waves travel through air (sound); and (people) waves through a (e.g.,) full football stadium travels through a mess of people. So I am inclined to say that light travels through light, but perhaps I should restate that: electromagnetic energy (light) travels through an electromagnetic substrate. Where is the electromagnetic substrate? By postulate it must be around, everywhere!
Atoms -- consider the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Because of the inverse-square rule for charge, the effect of charges that are further away are swamped by charges that are closer. In an hydrogen atom, the orbiting (for lack of a better word; shelled?) electron is on the average (linear average but squared effect) closer to some external (to the atom) point in space. Consider a hydrogen atom with an orbiting (“shelled”) electron. To some external point in space, the electron is both closer to and further from it than the proton (nucleus). The net electric charge when closer swamps the electric field when further (squared charge with distance). Thus, the charge is not balanced (neutralized) at some distance from the atom (think dipole, think spinning dipole). Space is (most usually) charged (negative, usually). Thus, light can travel through “charged” space, as water waves can travel through water. The electromagnetic wave (photon) travels through electromagnetic charged space.
There are a whole bunch of experiments which come to mind! For example, what happens to light as it passes from a negatively to a positively charged region – does the phase change? I had meant to address the reddening of star light; does the Doppler Effect explain the energy shift of light (red shift) (http://redshifting.weebly.com)?
Mach’s Principle, which Einstein embraced, is shown to be lacking ((http://pertrruyongcurt.weebly.com/). If Mach’s Equations require light to travel at “c”, then it is up to us in the meta-language to explain relative to what! Beckmann thought light travels at c relative to the source of light; thus, he promoted a gravitational meaning to the reference body for “c”. I now believe that electromagnetic waves through electromagnetism. This means that light travels at c relative to the local region (wherever it is).
Annotated References
The initiation of the investigation of the red shift – no conclusion.
https://sites.google.com/site/commentsonphysics/
A conclusion about the red shift. http://redshifting.weebly.com
One of my early sites where I think gravity is the aether.
https://sites.google.com/site/einsteinweinstein/
Early summary sites, still thinking that gravity is the aether. I was pushing a vertical arm of the M&M experiment, but recognized many problems.
https://sites.google.com/site/lettertodrhowardspivak/
https://sites.google.com/site/michelsonandmorleyexperiment/
https://sites.google.com/site/physicsagain/
https://sites.google.com/site/curtdavidweinstein/
https://sites.google.com/site/relativityrevisited/home/the-experiment
https://sites.google.com/site/e4e5nf3nf6nxp/
This site reviews some of my early thoughts.
https://sites.google.com/site/einsteinsrelativityrevisited/
Just as the great Dr. Boberg-Ans had missed an important link in his field (this reference), I had later sought to discover whether the great Dr. Albert Einstein had missed an important link.
A set of linked sites starting from “my” discovery of gravity as the aether. http://relativelynot.weebly.com/
The last site before this one: http://pertrruyongcurt.weebly.com/