Dear Reader, On this day of 13 June 2014, we will explore Special Relativity, the very same relativity that Professor Albert Einstein made famous. Included will be an example from Dr. Petr Beckmann on the apparent height of reflected radio waves. Further, stellar aberration will be reexamined. Something called the entrained aether (or ether) will be resurrected for a moment. Finally, another theory in lieu of special relativity will be presented.
The following sources are used:
1. Relativity: The Special and General Theory; Albert Einstein (English translation: R. W. Lawson)
2. Einstein Plus Two; Petr Beckmann
3. http://relativelynot.weebly.com/ which encodes many references
4. Licer, Matjaz The Concept of Aether in Classical Electrodynamics and Einstein’s Relativity. Filozofski vestnik, Volume 34 (2), 2013, pp 61-77 (as posted on 2-24-14)
Terms of interest follow. SR is used to mean Special Relativity. System or “an inertial frame of reference” means all those masses that are close together and move with the same velocity. Velocity means speed in a given direction. Generally, an inertial system will be taken as a whole not to accelerate with respect to other inertial systems. By the way, anything that rotates has acceleration. Although not usually specified, Euclidean space (geometry) is employed. The term “vacuum” refers to a space without mass in it. Technically, it means a space devoid of all. As used here, however, it means a space devoid of mass but not necessarily of gravity: a vacuum may contain gravity.
This illusion is courtesy of Dr. Beckmann. Dr. Beckmann reminds us of the ionospheric equivalence theorem that relates true and effective heights of the reflection of radio waves. When radio waves are shot up towards the ionosphere, the time the waves take to be detected on the ground some distance away from transmission can be used to calculate the height of the radio waves. We know the speed, c. We know the time, t. We know the waves are sent, and they come back. Therefore, we can calculate the height the waves reach. This all works fine in the laboratory, yet a detector placed at that height and position will not detect the waves! Why? Because the radio waves never reaches that height. Instead, they bounce about at a lower altitude. The illusion is one bounce at the effective height. The reality is a path of bounces at lower heights. This is a quote from Gilbert and Sullivan: “Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream.”
Consider these three postulates from physics.
P1: The interval of time between two events is independent of the motion of the reference body.
P2: The distance between two events is independent of the motion of the reference body.
P3: The speed of light in a vacuum is c (about 3(10^10) cm/s).
Background
SR is based on Einstein’s observation that P1 and P2 are inconsistent with observable results, i.e., P3. Einstein notes that repeated experiments, by such notables Michelson and Morley, have always shown the truth of P3 – at least on Earth. Yet even from outer space, Einstein references de Sitter’s astronomical observations from the lights of a double star. The stars revolve, yet the speed of light is the same. Thus, mathematically SR sits on firm ground. On Earth, the reality is light travels at the speed c; from de Sitter’s observations of outer space, source speed doesn’t affect light’s speed – case closed. But wait!
Reality, however, may differ from mathematical considerations. How can reality differ from math? Here is a simple example. The sum of one volume and another equal volume of liquid is mathematically two volumes of liquid; however, in reality there may be a drift. Try this. Combine one volume of ethanol with one volume of water, and behold for yourself, you do not have two volumes of liquid.
As a reminder, Michelson and Morley (and a host of others) have shown that light travels at c on the Earth. This is the same Earth that rotates on its axis, and that revolves around the Sun, even as the Sun moves through the Universe. So it would seem that the theoretical fabric of the Universe – the hypothetical aether – does not affect the transmission of light. Adding support, the astronomer, de Sitter, showed that light from a revolving pair of stars reaches the Earth with the same speed. That is, the back and forth movement of the stars do not change the speed of light. Einstein derives SR from observations such as these – light travels at a speed of c in a vacuum.
As for that phrase “in a vacuum” ending the last paragraph, it is well known that light slows in glass or water, etc. Some think that light wiggles through matter, its slowness nothing more than an increase in path length. If we keep our arguments to a vacuum (or a near vacuum of Earth’s surface), then we may avoid much speculation about light in matter.
Einstein uses the Lorentz Transformation to explain how time and distance are to be transformed, so that one light may yet travel at c in any inertial frame of reference. Unfortunately, the derivation of the Lorentz Transform that Einstein provides is wrong. (The proof offered seems to set negative quantities equal to positive quantities; the following site, http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/print/lorentz.htm, perhaps gives a more formal error analysis.) The derivational error doesn’t mean, however, that the Lorentz Transformation is also in error. Let us accept the Lorentz Transformation, for it doesn’t affect the argument against SR. Thus, with SR gone, there goes the utility of the Lorentz Transform.
Einstein’s analysis seems flawless. More recent considerations, however, can explain away the double-star effect that was observed by de Sitter. For example, perhaps the light on the way to Earth travels through some intra-space gasses that slow the faster emitted light or speed the slower emitted light. Perhaps the Earth’s atmosphere provides a medium that affects the observed speed of the lights. Although not confirmed, these assumptions damper the so-called proof from de Sitter’s observations.
Nevertheless, it seems as if light travels in a similar way to sound: light in aether is like sound in air. If there is no universal air, perhaps there is no universal aether, either. Of course, we could retreat to SR, but perhaps it would be more useful to find an entrained aether, an aether stuck to the Earth. Sound does not travel through outer space; a vacuum stops sound. Light travels through outer space, however. What is in outer space – gravity. Maybe the aether is gravity?
What follows is a discourse on aberration. SR light should not show aberration, as far as I can see. Why not? Light travels at c according to SR relative to everything and anything.
Consider the results from a star, y-Draconis. The original concept was to look for parallax. Parallax is found in the relative position of two objects. For instance, the objects look lined up only when the observer is in line with the two other objects. The observed effect was not parallax; it was aberration. Instead of parallax, consider (stellar) aberration. Aberration is caused by the relative movement of two objects. The Galilean relativity of two moving objects (star and Earth) considering a vector addition seems very consistent with the observed results. The Earth travels into the light of the star. Perhaps an additional explanation is necessary. I should explain aberration. The following explanation is taken from http://relativelynot.weebly.com/, but was heavily influenced by Beckmann.
“Bradley, about 1720, experimented with star light in his efforts trying to find parallax. Even though he didn’t detect stellar parallax, he did detect stellar aberration. Please note, parallax depends on the positions of the observer and the objects observed, whereas, aberration depends on their relative motion. Noticing that the position of a star changed with the seasons (i.e., as the Earth orbited the Sun), Bradley couched his explanation in Newton’s particle theory of light.
Thus, he showed that vector addition of
the velocities of Earth and star light
explained the aberration angle (i.e., stellar aberration).
Let me explain the aberration of (star) light by making an analogy to the aberration of rain drops. Conceptually, a star’s angle of aberration is similar to a raindrops’ angle of aberration. The raindrops are falling vertically to Earth, but you are walking. Thus, you observe an angle to the falling raindrops. Walking through rain mirrors the concept of stellar aberration. Let me restate this. When you are standing still in vertical rain, the rain misses your face; when you walk, the rain hits your face. The vector addition of walking and raining explains your wet face. This shows how rain aberration models stellar aberration. …
Airy performed Fresnel’s suggested experiment: repeat the aberration experiment with the telescope tubes filled with water! Airy expected an increase in the aberration angle …. But Fresnel (at the time of the experiment he was already dead) expected no change in the aberration angle. He had reasoned that the coefficient of drag through the stationary ether would increase the velocity of light and the water would slow the velocity of light, so that the angle of aberration would be independent of the index of refraction! Airy found no change in the aberration, thus confirming Fresnel’s concept of an elastic, partially entrained, compressible ether.… Airy’s experiment is consistent with the gravity hypothesis.”
The gravity hypothesis is that light travels at c in its local gravitational field.
Consider, please, instead of rejecting P1 and P2 and keeping P3, as Einstein suggests, we try something else. Try accepting P1 and P2, but rejecting P3.
Why reject P3, since Michelson has shown that the speed of light is constant on Earth?
As a reminder, many scientists contemporary to Einstein did not accept Einstein’s analysis. Einstein’s response was to challenge them to come up with an alternative theory. Many years later, Beckmann suggested that light travels at c relative to its inertial frame of reference. Einstein does not disagree, but Einstein generalizes (a lot).
You may recall that Einstein states, “Light travels at c through a vacuum.” I think, however, that instead, we should substitute “light travels at c through a field of gravity.” Light is born in gravity, and I think light is borne by gravity. Is there light anywhere that travels without a gravity field? Thus, the inertial frame of reference is the local gravity field. I think Beckmann agrees with that statement. By the way, gravity as the medium of light, would lead to the experimental results of Michelson and Morley. As for the results of de Sitter, surely as the gravitational fields merged, the lights from the double star would travel at the same rate.
In Einstein’s SR, light travels at c relative to both a flashlight in a moving car and a flashlight on the ground. Neat trick, eh? (Note 1) Mathematicians never let reality bother them; that’s because they don’t have to deal with reality. Worse yet, the mathematicians typically are internally consistent. That means you will not find an error within their system. Both Einstein and Beckmann seem to think that Special Relativity is internally consistent. But only Einstein, of the two, thinks it is true. Weinstein (author of this letter) is out on a limb because he thinks Special Relativity is not internally consistent. In summary: Einstein says internally consistent and true; Beckmann says internally consistent and not true; Weinstein says not internally consistent and not true. Technically, all we should care about is truth.
What would Einstein say? Professor Dr. Albert Einstein was an honest scientist. He didn’t care whether he was right or wrong on this matter, just as long as the process is explained correctly. Einstein wanted truth! Often he found truth first. For this event (SR) truth evaded him.
Please recall the illusion presented above, courtesy of Dr. Beckmann. Proponents of SR claim that the slowing of time due to a particle’s speed makes particles live longer relative to the Earth. OK, an example with fictitious data follows. A particle, which on Earth lives for 0.5 second, falls at a great speed from a great height. From Earth, it takes 1.0 second to fall and yet reaches the Earth’s surface! According to SR, this effect is due to the slowing of time for the particle. Instead of relying on SR, please rely on the Bernoulli Effect (or the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect). When things travel, they interact less with their environment; faster things interact even less with their environment. That explains the time differential. Something that would decay because of interactions with its stationary surround in t seconds, now because of its speed takes (t+d) seconds to decay. There is less interaction with the surround when the surround isn’t around that much.
I thought I was first to discover that the aether is gravity, but Beckmann preceded me by some 40 years. It turns out that Stokes (in 1848) had preceded Beckmann. More recently, Professor Licer claimed that Professor Einstein, with the introduction of General Relativity, created an aether out of gravity. I will, however, take credit for the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect.
Sincerely,
Curt Weinstein
Note 1: Following the concept "Light in gravity is like sound in air" we find that light travels at c relative to the local gravity.
The following sources are used:
1. Relativity: The Special and General Theory; Albert Einstein (English translation: R. W. Lawson)
2. Einstein Plus Two; Petr Beckmann
3. http://relativelynot.weebly.com/ which encodes many references
4. Licer, Matjaz The Concept of Aether in Classical Electrodynamics and Einstein’s Relativity. Filozofski vestnik, Volume 34 (2), 2013, pp 61-77 (as posted on 2-24-14)
Terms of interest follow. SR is used to mean Special Relativity. System or “an inertial frame of reference” means all those masses that are close together and move with the same velocity. Velocity means speed in a given direction. Generally, an inertial system will be taken as a whole not to accelerate with respect to other inertial systems. By the way, anything that rotates has acceleration. Although not usually specified, Euclidean space (geometry) is employed. The term “vacuum” refers to a space without mass in it. Technically, it means a space devoid of all. As used here, however, it means a space devoid of mass but not necessarily of gravity: a vacuum may contain gravity.
This illusion is courtesy of Dr. Beckmann. Dr. Beckmann reminds us of the ionospheric equivalence theorem that relates true and effective heights of the reflection of radio waves. When radio waves are shot up towards the ionosphere, the time the waves take to be detected on the ground some distance away from transmission can be used to calculate the height of the radio waves. We know the speed, c. We know the time, t. We know the waves are sent, and they come back. Therefore, we can calculate the height the waves reach. This all works fine in the laboratory, yet a detector placed at that height and position will not detect the waves! Why? Because the radio waves never reaches that height. Instead, they bounce about at a lower altitude. The illusion is one bounce at the effective height. The reality is a path of bounces at lower heights. This is a quote from Gilbert and Sullivan: “Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream.”
Consider these three postulates from physics.
P1: The interval of time between two events is independent of the motion of the reference body.
P2: The distance between two events is independent of the motion of the reference body.
P3: The speed of light in a vacuum is c (about 3(10^10) cm/s).
Background
SR is based on Einstein’s observation that P1 and P2 are inconsistent with observable results, i.e., P3. Einstein notes that repeated experiments, by such notables Michelson and Morley, have always shown the truth of P3 – at least on Earth. Yet even from outer space, Einstein references de Sitter’s astronomical observations from the lights of a double star. The stars revolve, yet the speed of light is the same. Thus, mathematically SR sits on firm ground. On Earth, the reality is light travels at the speed c; from de Sitter’s observations of outer space, source speed doesn’t affect light’s speed – case closed. But wait!
Reality, however, may differ from mathematical considerations. How can reality differ from math? Here is a simple example. The sum of one volume and another equal volume of liquid is mathematically two volumes of liquid; however, in reality there may be a drift. Try this. Combine one volume of ethanol with one volume of water, and behold for yourself, you do not have two volumes of liquid.
As a reminder, Michelson and Morley (and a host of others) have shown that light travels at c on the Earth. This is the same Earth that rotates on its axis, and that revolves around the Sun, even as the Sun moves through the Universe. So it would seem that the theoretical fabric of the Universe – the hypothetical aether – does not affect the transmission of light. Adding support, the astronomer, de Sitter, showed that light from a revolving pair of stars reaches the Earth with the same speed. That is, the back and forth movement of the stars do not change the speed of light. Einstein derives SR from observations such as these – light travels at a speed of c in a vacuum.
As for that phrase “in a vacuum” ending the last paragraph, it is well known that light slows in glass or water, etc. Some think that light wiggles through matter, its slowness nothing more than an increase in path length. If we keep our arguments to a vacuum (or a near vacuum of Earth’s surface), then we may avoid much speculation about light in matter.
Einstein uses the Lorentz Transformation to explain how time and distance are to be transformed, so that one light may yet travel at c in any inertial frame of reference. Unfortunately, the derivation of the Lorentz Transform that Einstein provides is wrong. (The proof offered seems to set negative quantities equal to positive quantities; the following site, http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/print/lorentz.htm, perhaps gives a more formal error analysis.) The derivational error doesn’t mean, however, that the Lorentz Transformation is also in error. Let us accept the Lorentz Transformation, for it doesn’t affect the argument against SR. Thus, with SR gone, there goes the utility of the Lorentz Transform.
Einstein’s analysis seems flawless. More recent considerations, however, can explain away the double-star effect that was observed by de Sitter. For example, perhaps the light on the way to Earth travels through some intra-space gasses that slow the faster emitted light or speed the slower emitted light. Perhaps the Earth’s atmosphere provides a medium that affects the observed speed of the lights. Although not confirmed, these assumptions damper the so-called proof from de Sitter’s observations.
Nevertheless, it seems as if light travels in a similar way to sound: light in aether is like sound in air. If there is no universal air, perhaps there is no universal aether, either. Of course, we could retreat to SR, but perhaps it would be more useful to find an entrained aether, an aether stuck to the Earth. Sound does not travel through outer space; a vacuum stops sound. Light travels through outer space, however. What is in outer space – gravity. Maybe the aether is gravity?
What follows is a discourse on aberration. SR light should not show aberration, as far as I can see. Why not? Light travels at c according to SR relative to everything and anything.
Consider the results from a star, y-Draconis. The original concept was to look for parallax. Parallax is found in the relative position of two objects. For instance, the objects look lined up only when the observer is in line with the two other objects. The observed effect was not parallax; it was aberration. Instead of parallax, consider (stellar) aberration. Aberration is caused by the relative movement of two objects. The Galilean relativity of two moving objects (star and Earth) considering a vector addition seems very consistent with the observed results. The Earth travels into the light of the star. Perhaps an additional explanation is necessary. I should explain aberration. The following explanation is taken from http://relativelynot.weebly.com/, but was heavily influenced by Beckmann.
“Bradley, about 1720, experimented with star light in his efforts trying to find parallax. Even though he didn’t detect stellar parallax, he did detect stellar aberration. Please note, parallax depends on the positions of the observer and the objects observed, whereas, aberration depends on their relative motion. Noticing that the position of a star changed with the seasons (i.e., as the Earth orbited the Sun), Bradley couched his explanation in Newton’s particle theory of light.
Thus, he showed that vector addition of
the velocities of Earth and star light
explained the aberration angle (i.e., stellar aberration).
Let me explain the aberration of (star) light by making an analogy to the aberration of rain drops. Conceptually, a star’s angle of aberration is similar to a raindrops’ angle of aberration. The raindrops are falling vertically to Earth, but you are walking. Thus, you observe an angle to the falling raindrops. Walking through rain mirrors the concept of stellar aberration. Let me restate this. When you are standing still in vertical rain, the rain misses your face; when you walk, the rain hits your face. The vector addition of walking and raining explains your wet face. This shows how rain aberration models stellar aberration. …
Airy performed Fresnel’s suggested experiment: repeat the aberration experiment with the telescope tubes filled with water! Airy expected an increase in the aberration angle …. But Fresnel (at the time of the experiment he was already dead) expected no change in the aberration angle. He had reasoned that the coefficient of drag through the stationary ether would increase the velocity of light and the water would slow the velocity of light, so that the angle of aberration would be independent of the index of refraction! Airy found no change in the aberration, thus confirming Fresnel’s concept of an elastic, partially entrained, compressible ether.… Airy’s experiment is consistent with the gravity hypothesis.”
The gravity hypothesis is that light travels at c in its local gravitational field.
Consider, please, instead of rejecting P1 and P2 and keeping P3, as Einstein suggests, we try something else. Try accepting P1 and P2, but rejecting P3.
Why reject P3, since Michelson has shown that the speed of light is constant on Earth?
As a reminder, many scientists contemporary to Einstein did not accept Einstein’s analysis. Einstein’s response was to challenge them to come up with an alternative theory. Many years later, Beckmann suggested that light travels at c relative to its inertial frame of reference. Einstein does not disagree, but Einstein generalizes (a lot).
You may recall that Einstein states, “Light travels at c through a vacuum.” I think, however, that instead, we should substitute “light travels at c through a field of gravity.” Light is born in gravity, and I think light is borne by gravity. Is there light anywhere that travels without a gravity field? Thus, the inertial frame of reference is the local gravity field. I think Beckmann agrees with that statement. By the way, gravity as the medium of light, would lead to the experimental results of Michelson and Morley. As for the results of de Sitter, surely as the gravitational fields merged, the lights from the double star would travel at the same rate.
In Einstein’s SR, light travels at c relative to both a flashlight in a moving car and a flashlight on the ground. Neat trick, eh? (Note 1) Mathematicians never let reality bother them; that’s because they don’t have to deal with reality. Worse yet, the mathematicians typically are internally consistent. That means you will not find an error within their system. Both Einstein and Beckmann seem to think that Special Relativity is internally consistent. But only Einstein, of the two, thinks it is true. Weinstein (author of this letter) is out on a limb because he thinks Special Relativity is not internally consistent. In summary: Einstein says internally consistent and true; Beckmann says internally consistent and not true; Weinstein says not internally consistent and not true. Technically, all we should care about is truth.
What would Einstein say? Professor Dr. Albert Einstein was an honest scientist. He didn’t care whether he was right or wrong on this matter, just as long as the process is explained correctly. Einstein wanted truth! Often he found truth first. For this event (SR) truth evaded him.
Please recall the illusion presented above, courtesy of Dr. Beckmann. Proponents of SR claim that the slowing of time due to a particle’s speed makes particles live longer relative to the Earth. OK, an example with fictitious data follows. A particle, which on Earth lives for 0.5 second, falls at a great speed from a great height. From Earth, it takes 1.0 second to fall and yet reaches the Earth’s surface! According to SR, this effect is due to the slowing of time for the particle. Instead of relying on SR, please rely on the Bernoulli Effect (or the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect). When things travel, they interact less with their environment; faster things interact even less with their environment. That explains the time differential. Something that would decay because of interactions with its stationary surround in t seconds, now because of its speed takes (t+d) seconds to decay. There is less interaction with the surround when the surround isn’t around that much.
I thought I was first to discover that the aether is gravity, but Beckmann preceded me by some 40 years. It turns out that Stokes (in 1848) had preceded Beckmann. More recently, Professor Licer claimed that Professor Einstein, with the introduction of General Relativity, created an aether out of gravity. I will, however, take credit for the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect.
Sincerely,
Curt Weinstein
Note 1: Following the concept "Light in gravity is like sound in air" we find that light travels at c relative to the local gravity.