Alternative to Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Feb 1, 2003.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    I am led to believe that the Miller experiments were the most accurate ever at that time, but do you suppose that is still the case? Have another look at the table in the Physics without Einstein thread.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    Actually, there haven't been any eather-detection experiments that actually give a null result. They all showed small deviations, but those deviations were considered within the margin of error since they were so much smaller then the expected speed of the Earth through the aether.

    As I showed a few posts above, according to my theory, the speed of light on the surface of the Earth would only change by a maximum of 9 m/s as a result of the Sun's gravitational field. This number is over 3000 times smaller than the expected speed of the Earth through aether. It doesn't surprise me that it wasn't detected, and if it was, that it was ignored in all those aether-detection experiments.

    Photons might accelerate, or decelerate, faster in a stronger gravitational field, but because of their very small inertial mass, their acceleration/deceleration may be almost instantanious regardless of field strength. However, I'm not saying that with today's equipment it would be impossible to measure the difference in the acceleration of a photon in a strong field as opposed to a weak field, I'm just saying that it may be difficult.

    As I stated earlier, because we are moving through the Sun's gravitational field, the speed of light is not constant. Instead, it will vary, according to my theory, in the range of c-9m/s to c+9m/s.

    If a photon were in multiple gravitational fields, and each gravitational field was moving at a different speed, but their strengths were all the same relative to the photon, then they would all have an equal effect on the photon. The fields would be playing a "tug of war" on the photon, each field trying to making the photon travel at c in its own field. The result would be that the photon wouldn't be travelling at c relative to any of the fields. If however, an observer was moving through these fields so that the strengths and the speeds of the fields average out, then the observer would measure the speed of light to be equal to exactly c.

    Here's an example:

    Let's say that an observer is sitting between two stars, A and B, of equal mass that are moving away from each other. The observer is stationairy relative to both stars so that the distance between the observer and each star remains constant. Now let's say that star A releases a photon towards the observer, and star B, and let's also assume that the observer can at any point in the photon's trip, measure its speed relative to himself/herself. According to my theory, as soon as star A emits the photon, the photon would be travelling at c-v relative to the observer, where v is the speed at which star A is moving away from the observer (This is because the gravitational field of star A has a strong effect on the photon, while the field of star B has almost no effect. The photon would actualy be travelling at c relative to star A).

    As the photon approaches the observer, its speed would increase since the effects of the gravitational field of star A would get weaker, and the effects of star B's field would get stronger. When the photon finally reaches the observer, its speed would be exactly c since, relative to the observer, the gravitational fields of both star would be equal, and the speed of the gravitational fields of both stars would average out to 0. As the photon passes the observer, it's speed would continue increasing until it's speed reaches c+v when it impacts star B (v is also the speed at which star B is moving away from the observer).

    To summarize:

    Relative to the observer, the photon would go from c-v when it is emitted by star A, to c+v when it impacts star B.(where v is the speed at which both stars are moving away from the observer)

    Relative to star A, the photon is emitted at c, and increases its speed to c+v1 when it impacts star B. (where v1 is the speed at which star A is moving away from star B)

    Relative to star B, the photon is emitted at c-v1, and increases its speed to c when it impacts star B. (where v1 is the speed at which star A is moving away from star B).

    If you've noticed, in my theory redshifting and blueshifting does not occur at the source or the destination (or both), but occurs gradually as the photon's speed changes as it moves from one gravitational field into another. In my theory, redshifting/blueshifting is just a way for the photon to conserve energy as its speed changes.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Almost, but not quite right.

    In fact, if you have studied statistics, you will probably be familiar with the term "null hypothesis". In the aether-detection experiments, the null hypothesis is that an aether is not detected. Using standard statistical methods and a correct knowledge of the sources of experimental error present, it is possible to quantify the probability that the null hypothesis is in fact not true, but that experimental results nevertheless say it is true.

    The point is: in all the ether experiments performed, the null hypothesis has been confirmed to a very high level of confidence. It does not matter if the results obtained showed a small non-zero aether-drift, as long as the results are consistent, to a high probability, with the hypothesis that no ether drift was detected.

    If you examine the M-M experiment, for example, you will very quickly discover that the results obtained, even if non-zero, were still consistent with the truth of the null hypothesis. And later, more accurate, experiments significantly reduced the probability of an incorrect null conclusion.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    If you assume to detect an aether drift that is equal to the speed of the Earth around the Sun then you are correct, all those aether detection experiments have given a null result.

    However, if you assume that mass drags a dynamic aether around, or that gravitational fields directly influence the speed of photons, then those small variations cannot be regarded as null results. It basically comes dow to what you're assuming.
  8. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    so prosoothus
    if i get your theory right
    what is the result of the follolwing expirement

    so youyre trying to tell us that the diviation in light speed is lower than or at least equal to the errors in the m&m experiment and the later ones

    whats the prove
    yuore making a quantitative judgement
    to prove what you say you have to say that my theory predicts that value
    which is lower than the error in the most accurate expirement done to the moment

    if you dont have a proof that the diviation is that small how can you conclusively say that this is a diviation not an error

    ok thats one thing
    now back to the double gravataional field example

    what youre saying is with all due respect a big pile of crap
    let me explain
    what youre saying is

    now let me ask you something
    each field is trying to make the photon travel at C in its own field
    ok but you said earlier that no matter how strong the gravatational field is for an observer at rest relative to the gravational field he would see it as C
    am i right

    ok so the intensity doesnt effect its speed
    if 2 fields are fighting over one photon
    it does make a difference
    as the one with the more strength in grvatational field will pull it away
    and if the both have the same intensity it would move at c as they both cancel out
    so does or does not the intinsity affect the photon
    i mean if what youre saying is right it would only matter the speed at which the gravational field is moving at
    the one moving at higher speed will pull more
    even if it is light cnturies away

    the problem is if that is true then every star in the universe is affecting the photon
    which would surely affect the photon make it move in a different ay in our gravatational field

    how ever if the intensity does matter
    then why is the photon moving at a constant speed in our gravatational field and in other gravational field even the observer is at rest
  9. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    You have a point. The deviations in the various aether-detection experiments are not proof that my theory is correct. These same experiments would have to be done at a high speed through a gravitational field in order to validate or invalidate my theory.

    On the other hand, the so-called "margins of error" in the aether-detection experiments were determined after the results of the experiments came in, and not before. This makes me wonder whether the true margin of error was that large, or whether it was artificially inflated so that the detected deviations fell within that range.

    If there is only one gravitational field in the universe, and an observer was at rest relative to that field, then the observer would measure the speed of light to be equal to exactly c.

    If you add a second gravitational field that is moving relative to the first field, and the observer is at rest relative to the first field, the observer will measure the speed of light to not be equal to c. The greater the strength and the speed of the second gravitational field, the larger the difference between the speed of light measured by the observer and c.

    On the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is 1650 times stronger than the Sun's. Because of this, the deviation in the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, caused by the Sun's gravitational field, is very small. You can round it to c if you prefer, but it isn't exactly c.
  10. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    This bullshit conspiracy crap has got to stop.

    I) Why would they inflate the results to support theory?
    II)Don't you think that if someone had the chance, they would love to prove Einstein wrong?

    Physics is a search for the truth, not a path to celebrity, nor a worship of authorities.

    The problem is with your unwillingness to properly learn the theory. If you cannot derive the generators of at least the homogenous Lorentz group, and consequently the relativistic addition of velocities formula as well as the fact that 2 orthogonal Lorentz boosts give a rotation, then you neither have the appreciation, nor the ability to understand relativity. And don't tell me these are irrelevant mathematical constructs, because the origin of Thomas procession can be found from the fact that Lorentz boosts do not commute.
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: I do not want to start a pissing contest here and I am not saying who is right. I just wanted to note that there are "Many" bonafide physicists that are claiming that the H&K clock experiments did in fact have far to large of sources of error and even erratic data which was filtered, modified and adjusted or taken statistically that rendered them inconclusive to produce the results and claims they did and for which relativists vouch for.
  12. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    ok so Prosoothus
    what about doing the experiemnet on a sat orbiting the sun like soho
    would that prove your theory where the grava fields are consedirebly colse to each other
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    How small is the deviation?
    What is it, exactly?
  14. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    A satellite orbiting the Sun, far from other planet's gravitational fields, would be a perfect place to test my theory. I would have the satellite drag an MM inferometer at the end of a tether (to eliminate the small effects of the satellites gravitational field), and rotate the inferometer to see if the speed of light changes. If I'm correct, the change in the speed of light will be equal to the speed that the satellite is orbiting the Sun.
  15. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    The deviation would be about +-9 m/s. I used a rough approximation to get this number. Below, I cut and paste how I got this number from one of my previous posts:

  16. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    so has that never been done
    are all relativity proving experiemnets done on or near earth
    hasnt any of the sun orbiting sats or even ones leaving the solar system or onmes hiding towards other plants done such an experiemnet

    and are there any effects that can be measured here

    and if light is just waves in a meduim called gravity
    whats the need for aeather anyway????
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Actually, we don't have to agree with you at all... you might be right, but you'd be more believable if you made some references to the most accurate light speed measurements.

    I suspect you're underestimating the precision of modern experimental physics techniques. For example, I read that the gyroscopes in Gravity Probe B are so precisely manufactured that in the course of a year their deviation in alignment can be predicted and measured to within half a milli-arcsecond. That's a very fine angle - the width of a pencil at a distance of three thousand kilometers!

    So, are you really sure that an error of 9m/s in 30km/s is beyond experimental precision?
  18. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    I'ts hard to believe, but the experiments you're suggesting have never been performed. I guess anyone attempting to perform these experiments would be considered a crackpot since they don't have faith in Special Relativity.

    In my theory, space is the medium for light, but gravitational fields are the forces that accelerate, or sometimes decelerate, light to the speed of c. In other words, light in space is like a sailboat in the ocean and gravitational fields are the winds that propel the sailboat. So actually, aether is not necessary in my theory, unless you consider space as a form of aether.
  19. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    I believe that its possible to make a device that's that precise, but would anyone believe the results? When Dayton Miller made his large and precise inferometer, and when his device indicated a deviation even greater than 9 m/s, the scientific community attributed the results to the effects of temperature on his device.

    You also have to remember that the Earth is not a perfect inertial frame. Its rotation and non-linear orbit can result in deviations that may be larger than 9 m/s. But as long as the scientific community refuses to question the basic assumption of Special Relativity, physicists will always find reasons, or excuses, why the non-null results of those experiments are corrupt.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Miller's results have been examined, and systematic errors were discovered. You like to gloss over that, but those are the facts.
  21. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    Yes, by a pro-relativist, after Miller's death, so those assertions could not be challenged.
  22. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    like you question the integrity of those who disputed miller's results, we can dispute the intigrity of those who explain it differently.
    you call them pro-relativist
    we call them anti relativists those who hate relativity and would like to prove it wrong any way they can.
    the problem is that they start there. they are unscientific the go we hate relativity relativity is bad and evil we must find an unlernative
    unlikne relativity which came after we noticed flaws in the newton model
  23. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    I don't think the characterization of the earth frame, Ve, is as disjointed as you have stated. I made some calculations that showed the motion direction vector was moving at a rate o 10^-8 degree/sec. This hardly a factor in every day measurements. Also. I have been searching for some method that can dispute the statement that the Ve earth frame trajectory is measurably indistinguishable from a straight line motion.

    The sun drags the earth (and other planets) along at 208 km/sec which effectively smothers the effect of roattion and sun orbit motions.Using the radius of the earth-sun oprbit at 1.49 x 10^8 km and the distance the sun moves in a year theheliocal trajectory is confined to a narrow angle where tan^-1 = (1.49 x 10^8 /(31465687x208) = 1.3 degrees.

    You talk of corrupting science, well how about the statement (postulate) that the speed of light is measured constant for all observers? Compare this to the postulate governing the motion of light, that the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source. Now to state that the measure of light is characterized as "constant to all observers" places restrictions on the independence of that motion and the measure of he motion, but then withiout the corrupted postulates no SR.

Share This Page