BINGO: This work appears to support my views and opens the concepts to actual testing which should in the near future either directly confirm Relativity or cause its outright demise.

A lot of material here, particularily in the second link. It covers invariance of light, time dilation and contraction. It covers the ability to directly determine the Quasar FTL question and many other topics that I hve tried to advance here but without the credentials have been simply trashed, ignored and/or phoo-pooed.

Lets see how you handle this guy since what he is saying is precisely what I have been saying.

Have fun. I am.

It is called RCM theory.

I post it here for two good reasons:

1 - It conforms to my own view of the invariance of light being a function of an energy gradient. That is light being produced is percieved as a function of energy of the observer to the source.

Which has provided physics with a false premis for the development of the Theory of Relativity.

2 - It proposes tests which can determine which view is valid SR or RCM.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/german1/german1.doc



Antimated illustrations of functions of Relativity and RCM along with test proposals.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Looks interesting and simply written. I’ll check it out.

I have opened the link and the first sentence that I have read was: "Maxwell's equations do not in themselves predict a specific value for the constant (or variable) c which appears in them."

Maxwell's equation do predict that there exist em waves which propagate at the speed of light c. Maxwell's equation give the value of this speed and it is indeed c.

Next in the paper it is said that :"On the basis of this model, a Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations is obtained.".
Where are these Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations?


Then it is said that the "problem" with SR is there exist no preferd inertial frame. Well, I don't see what is the problem with that.

And it goes on and on and on...

Yeah right, this is going to bring the downfall of SR. If you believe these pretty pictures actually depict real physics, then you will also believe that there is a galaxy far, far away

Lets see how you handle this guy since what he is saying is precisely what I have been saying.

If so, then simply have him read our responses to your threads and he’ll see his own misunderstandings, errors, etc.

Originally posted by ryans
If you believe these pretty pictures actually depict real physics, then you will also believe that there is a galaxy far, far away

and you, ryans, only believe in nearby galaxies, i take it?

Q,

If so, then simply have him read our responses to your threads and he’ll see his own misunderstandings, errors, etc.

:D

Actually I can't say this guy is right, I just hope he is. But one could also suggest that you read his work and you might find that all those replies were premature.

I know it isn't your favorite journal but he is published several times in IEEE and has been asked to give lectures on this to other scientists, so he isn't just some UniKEF boob off the street.

What I especially like is that he proposes actual direct tests of Relavistic affects that are doable today (so he claims).

and you, ryans, only believe in nearby galaxies, i take it?

No Lethe, I was refering to the opening lines of Star Wars

Mac

And his website has been listed on Crank.net for several years.

MacM,

1 - It conforms to my own view of the invariance of light being a function of an energy gradient.

So I assume that you believe that the principle of invariance of light is valid, even though Dayton Miller's experimental results don't support it?

My question is has Relativity ever been proven. I am trying to think back to science class but dont remember any talk of its proof just what it ment. If there has been please reply this question.


Check out my idea
www.geocities.com/mdhislaer
:D

Prosoothus,

So I assume that you believe that the principle of invariance of light is valid, even though Dayton Miller's experimental results don't support it?


ANS: No, not at all. I believe that the MMX and MIller did show a correlation to velocity but it simply wasn't that which was predicted and shows only that for some reason we were not getting a full strength affect; which some say is because the ether may be pulled along by a massive graviting body.

I believe in absence of that that one will measure light to be constant regardless of velocity to the light source; which is in general accordance with experiment and observation.

However, I also believe that this is an affect of the production (or perception) of light and not that "a " photon has a variable speed as a function of any number of observers at different relative velocities at the same time to it.

"Invariance of light" as it is commonly stated or used in Relativity is based on a false premis and that is the failure to understand the nature of light and not actual variation of light speed to remain constant to a moving observer.

If this is n't clear let me know and I'll try to restate it. Better yet look at the link I provided. It describes the affect very nicely, with graphics.

Q,

And his website has been listed on Crank.net for several years.

ANS: Actually I find this comment only to typical when Relativists are cornered. I would be more impressed by an actual reply that states valid disqualifiction of the concept.

Originally posted by MacM
Q,



ANS: Actually I find this comment only to typical when Relativists are cornered. I would be more impressed by an actual reply that states valid disqualifiction of the concept.

You have already been supplied with one:

Originally posted by 1100f
Next in the paper it is said that :"On the basis of this model, a Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations is obtained.".
Where are these Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations?


I'll answer his question for you: There is no Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations.

I have told you this at least a half dozen times. I even referred you to the relevant discussion in Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. It is in Chapter 11, in which SR is first discussed. He explicitly presents the EM wave equation under a Galilean transformation, and it is manifestly not invariant, and neither can any transformation of the fields themselves be done to restore the equation (as can be done with the Schrodinger equation). You don't have to take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

If the claims of SR are wrong, then so are the claims of Maxwellian electrodynamics (although the converse is not true).

Tom2,


ANS: Actually I find this comment only to typical when Relativists are cornered. I would be more impressed by an actual reply that states valid disqualifiction of the concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You have already been supplied with one:


ANS: Perhaps but certainly not by the relply that follows and that was the point I was addressing.


Q,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And his website has been listed on Crank.net for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by MacM
Tom2,

ANS: Perhaps but certainly not by the relply that follows and that was the point I was addressing.

OK, so ignore that reply and go check out Jackson.

Tom2,

[/b] Jackson.[/b]


Who is Jackson?

Originally posted by Tom2
I have told you this at least a half dozen times. I even referred you to the relevant discussion in Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. It is in Chapter 11, in which SR is first discussed. He explicitly presents the EM wave equation under a Galilean transformation, and it is manifestly not invariant, and neither can any transformation of the fields themselves be done to restore the equation (as can be done with the Schrodinger equation). You don't have to take my word for it, check it out for yourself.


J. D. Jackson, the guy who wrote the book I referred you to.

Tom2,

Thanks.

Originally posted by 1100f
"Maxwell's equations do not in themselves predict a specific value for the constant (or variable) c which appears in them."

Maxwell's equation do predict that there exist em waves which propagate at the speed of light c.


That's right. Using the boldface ∂ for the "del" operator, Maxwell's equations in vacuo are:

∂xE+(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(1)
∂xB-(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(2)
∂^.E=0.....(3)
∂^.B=0.....(4)

Making use of the vector identity:

∂x∂xA=∂(∂^.A)-∂²A,

We can take the curl of equation (1) to obtain:

∂x∂xE+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0
∂(∂^.E)-∂²E+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0

The part in blue vanishes by virtue of equation (3), and the part in red can be rewritten as -(1/c)∂E/∂t, by virtue of equation (2).

This gives us:

∂²E-(1/c²)∂²E/∂t²=0,

which is a wave equation. Taking the curl of equation (2) and following a similar path will show you that B satisfies the exact same wave equation.


Maxwell's equation give the value of this speed and it is indeed c.


Right again. The components of the plane wave solutions of the wave equation are of the form:

A_i(x,t)=A_i0sin(k^.x-wt+f)

where w/|k|=c. Since the solutions have constant phase, we can derive the speed of the waves to be c.


Next in the paper it is said that :"On the basis of this model, a Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations is obtained.".
Where are these Galilean invariant form of Maxwell's equations?


The answer is that they do not exist. If electrodynamics is to be reformulated so that it is Galilean invariant, then the resulting equations will not be Maxwell's equations.

Here's what the reference from Jackson has to say about it. First, assume Galilean relativity. For a moving frame S' and a stationary frame S, we have:

x'=x-vt
t'=t

Let the wave equation hold in frame S. What does it look like in S'? We can derive that as follows:

∂/∂x=(∂x'/∂x)∂/∂x'=∂/∂x'
∂/∂y=(∂y'/∂y)∂/∂y'=∂/∂y'
∂/∂z=(∂z'/∂z)∂/∂z'=∂/∂z'

∂/∂t=(∂x'/∂/t)(∂/∂x')+(∂y'/∂t)(∂/∂y')+(∂z'/∂t)(∂/∂z')+(∂t'/∂t)(∂/∂t')
∂/∂t=v^.∂'-(1/c)∂/∂t'

Squaring each operator and writing the equation in the coordinates of S' yields:

(∂'²-(1/c²)(∂²/∂t'²-(2/c²)v^.∂'(∂/∂t')-(1/c²)(v^.∂)²)A_i=0

where A_i is any component of either the E or B field.

Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car.

The Lorentz transformation, on the other hand, does preserve the form of the EM wave equation.

This is what none of the preachers of the Anti Relativity Religion understand. Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air. They are logically derived consequences of the requirement that the EM wave equation and the speed of light be the same in every frame. The original paper was not even called, "Intro to Special Relativity", it was called, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Like it or not folks, relativity is correct. If any of you wants to convince thinking persons otherwise, then you will have to argue on these terms, because these are the terms in which relativity was formulated.

edit: fixed various bracket errors.

Tom2,

What's your definition of a wave?

An observer that is moving relative to a sound source will hear the sound even though the sound is not moving at the speed of sound relative to the observer. The only thing that the observer will notice different as a result of is/her motion is the frequency of the sound would change.

Why wouldn't the same apply to electromagnetic waves? Since electromagnetic waves travel at such high speeds, wouldn't an observer have to be moving at a high speed through the preferred frame of reference to notice even a small shift in the frequency of the electromagnetic waves?

Originally posted by Prosoothus
What's your definition of a wave?


A wave is a periodic disturbance in a physical field, and is described by the wave equation I presented.


An observer that is moving relative to a sound source will hear the sound even though the sound is not moving at the speed of sound relative to the observer. The only thing that the observer will notice different as a result of is/her motion is the frequency of the sound would change.


Exactly my point.

If Galilean relativity holds, then the above should not be the case. That is, in a Galilean universe, there is only a single frame in which the wave equation is a wave equation, and that is the rest frame of the source. It is only in a relativistic universe that waves are waves in every frame.


Why wouldn't the same apply to electromagnetic waves? Since electromagnetic waves travel at such high speeds, wouldn't an observer have to be moving at a high speed through the preferred frame of reference to notice even a small shift in the frequency of the electromagnetic waves?


The same is true of EM waves. But that is not the issue. You are talking about a Doppler shift, whereas I am talking about something more fundamental. The last post I made shows not that EM waves are Doppler shifted under boosts in a Galilean universe, but that they are not even waves at all.

Since we know that EM waves are waves in every frame, we can conclude that relativity is correct.

Tom2,

Reducing your arguement to its simplist form, i.e. - For example it is argued that "0" or "Nothingness" cannot exist because at infitesimal ranges there will always be some +/- quality and exact "0" never exists.

It occurs to me that you are saying that the wave (not the radio) has a perfect "Q" and any deviation from that "Q" causes transmission failure of the wave.

It would seem that such an arguement has the same reality constraints as the one regarding "0" and that either that arguement is invalid or that "0" actually exists.

In otherwords this issue comes down to absolute precision in terms of taught band.

Isn't that fair to say?

In those terms doesn't that mean that either "0" exists or the universe doesn't?

In the alternative is not radio an EM wave and as is being proposed for light (an EM wave) it too may share a common form of propagation and share the same "apparent" invariance for the same reasons.?

**************
The radio EM is nothing more than light EM and hence actually radio EM is broadcast with the same energy gradient proposed for light propagation and hence shares the same v = c affect.

One would only hear that EM wave being propagated at the v = c energy level but that the radio signal exists over the entire spectrum of energies. Therefore observers traveling with different velocities (energy) relative to the transmission tower would be listening to the same broadcast and frequency but at a different energy level of propagation.
*************************************

And finally, does not your claim that the radio wave only exists at one precise point relative to the frame, the same arguement being made for the RCM production (or perception) of light being at the same precise conditions you state are required?

You are trying to apply the very standard that is propsed to cause the observed invariance as being the reason it doesn't exist.

Tom2,

Since we know that EM waves are waves in every frame, we can conclude that relativity is correct.

According to simple geometry, wouldn't a wave, of a certain frequency, in a preferred frame of reference, still be a wave in other frames of reference but only with a different frequency?

I don't see how relativity has anything to do with it.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
According to simple geometry, wouldn't a wave, of a certain frequency, in a preferred frame of reference, still be a wave in other frames of reference but only with a different frequency?


No, it wouldn't. I just showed that it would not be so. The wave equation does not retain its form under Galilean relativity, but it does under SR.


I don't see how relativity has anything to do with it.


Maybe that's because I did not show how the EM wave equation transforms under Lorentz transformations. I simply stated that it is the same in both frames. I was trying to save myself some typing, but I guess that's out the window.

Let frame S' move in the +x direction with a speed v as measured by S. I would generalize to a velocity with 3 nonzero components, but that derivation is very long. You can work out for yourself that it works, by using the same reasoning I am using here.

The Lorentz transformation reads as follows:

x'=g(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=g(t-vx/c²)

Now transform the derivatives as follows:

∂/∂x=(∂x'/∂x)∂/∂x'+(∂t'/∂x)∂/∂t'
∂/∂x=g∂/∂x'-vg/c²

∂/∂y=∂/∂y'

∂/∂z=∂/∂z'

∂/∂t=(∂x'/∂t)∂/∂x'+(∂t'/∂t)∂/∂t'
∂/∂t=-gv∂/∂t'+g∂/∂t'

Square each operator and rewrite the wave equation in terms of the primed coordinates. You will get the exact same wave equation.

Originally posted by MacM
It occurs to me that you are saying that the wave (not the radio) has a perfect "Q" and any deviation from that "Q" causes transmission failure of the wave.


What is "Q"?


In otherwords this issue comes down to absolute precision in terms of taught band.

Isn't that fair to say?


No, the argument is centered around the fact that the solutions to the Galilean transformed wave equation, are in fact not propagating wave solutions at all.


In those terms doesn't that mean that either "0" exists or the universe doesn't?


If it does, I do not see how. :confused:


In the alternative is not radio an EM wave and as is being proposed for light (an EM wave) it too may share a common form of propagation and share the same "apparent" invariance for the same reasons.?


What, exactly, are you asking me here? Are you asking about whether there is a different formulation of electrodynamics, such that it is invariant under Galilean transforms?


The radio EM is nothing more than light EM and hence actually radio EM is broadcast with the same energy gradient proposed for light propagation and hence shares the same v = c affect.

One would only hear that EM wave being propagated at the v = c energy level but that the radio signal exists over the entire spectrum of energies. Therefore observers traveling with different velocities (energy) relative to the transmission tower would be listening to the same broadcast and frequency but at a different energy level of propagation.


This cannot be the case, because of the simple fact that moving observers who receive radio signals all get the same message. If different parts of the carrier signal were observed in different frames, then that would not be the case. Yes, the frequency of the radiation is Doppler shifted, but it is not true that the moving antennae intercept different components of the radiation.


And finally, does not your claim that the radio wave only exists at one precise point relative to the frame, the same arguement being made for the RCM production (or perception) of light being at the same precise conditions you state are required?


I did not claim that the radio wave exists at one precise point at all. Very much to the contrary, plane wave solutions to the equation are infinite in extent.


You are trying to apply the very standard that is propsed to cause the observed invariance as being the reason it doesn't exist.


I have no idea of what your point here is.

Tom2,

Yes, the frequency of the radiation is Doppler shifted, but it is not true that the moving antennae intercept different components of the radiation.

ANS: This response more than anyother I think answers the question I was proposing.

I was not making reference to any specific model but to the fact that what you claim as being reality requires that light be observed as invariant (which gives some concern in that it doesn't provide a "Cause" for the "Affect") vs RCM which results in a "Cause" for the "Affect" by claiming propagation of EM over an energy spectrum or gradient which is only percived at some specific energy level.

The fact that our observation is invariant light and no other observation actually tends to support the idea of an energy gradiant percieved only at v = c rather than disproves it.

However, if that were true I would not expect to see doppler shift at all, so that suggests that the perception is not simply the same wave at a higher energy level.

Originally posted by MacM
I was not making reference to any specific model but to the fact that what you claim as being reality requires that light be observed as invariant (which gives some concern in that it doesn't provide a "Cause" for the "Affect")


It should not cause any concern, because the universe is not known a priori. That means that all lines of inquiry will terminate on fundamental phenomena whose cause is not known.


vs RCM which results in a "Cause" for the "Affect" by claiming propagation of EM over an energy spectrum or gradient which is only percived at some specific energy level.


Even if someone discovers a theory which describes the cause of the invariance of the speed of light, that theory must reproduce the Lorentz transformation in order to be correct.

Originally posted by Tom2
It should not cause any concern, because the universe is not known a priori. That means that all lines of inquiry will terminate on fundamental phenomena whose cause is not known. You just hit the nail on the head. Certain members have been unable to grasp this whatsoever (although they claim understand this anyway)

Tom2,

Even if someone discovers a theory which describes the cause of the invariance of the speed of light, that theory must reproduce the Lorentz transformation in order to be correct.

ANS: It would seem that IF RCM was reality, the mere fact that it would produce the observation of light to be invariant that it would result in the Lorentz function.

However, in responding to my post you have left out the closing where I stated that the observance of doppler shift would seem to contradict the view from RCM.

ATTN Persol: That leaves the post appearing to correct those of us that merely think we understand.

Originally posted by MacM
ANS: It would seem that IF RCM was reality, the mere fact that it would produce the observation of light to be invariant that it would result in the Lorentz function.


If RCM were logically consistent, and it maintained that the speed of light is an invariant, then you're right, it would have to reproduce the Lorentz transformation. However, they explicitly claim to have found these (non-existent) Maxwell equations that are covariant under Galilean transformations.

Something is rotten in Denmark!


However, in responding to my post you have left out the closing where I stated that the observance of doppler shift would seem to contradict the view from RCM.


I did not feel the need to comment on that, because I already showed that RCM is wrong with my Galilean transformation of the EM wave equation.