Skip to comments.Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
Posted on 06/12/2009 11:25:41 PM PDT by Kevmo
Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia
The anisotropy of the speed of light at 1 part in 10^3 has been detected by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al. (1964), Torr and Kolen (1984), DeWitte (1991) and Cahill (2006) using a variety of experimental techniques, from gas-mode Michelson interferometers (with the relativistic theory for these only determined in 2002) to one-way RF coaxial cable propagation timing. All agree on the speed, right ascension and declination of the anisotropy velocity. The Stephan Marinov experiment (1984) detected a light speed anisotropy using a mechanical coupled shutters technique which has holes in co-rotating disks, essentially a one-way version of the Fizeau mechanical round-trip speed-of-light experiment. The Marinov data is re-analysed herein because the velocity vector he determined is in a very different direction to that from the above experiments. No explanation for this difference has been uncovered.
That the speed of light in vacuum is the same in all directions, i.e. isotropic, for all observers has been taken as a critical assumption in the standard formulation of fundamental physics, and was introduced by Einstein in 1905 as one of his key postulates when formulating his interpretation of Special Relativity. The need to detect any anisotropy has challenged physicists from the 19th century to the present day, particularly following the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The problem arose when Maxwell in 1861 successfully computed the speed of light c from his unified theory of electric and magnetic fields: but what was the speed c relative to? There have been many attempts to detect any supposed light-speed anisotropy, and as discussed in the Sect.2 there have so far been 8 successful and consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed. The reasons for these different outcomes is now understood: any light-speed anisotropy produces not only an expected direct effect, being that which is expected to produce a signal, but also affects the very physical structure of the apparatus, and with this effect usually overlooked in the design of some detectors. In some designs these effects exactly cancel.
The key point here is not whether the predicted Special Relativity effects are valid or invalid, for the experimental evidence is overwhelming that these predictions are valid, but rather whether the Lorentz or Einstein interpretation of Special Relativity is correct. This debate has always been confused by the failure to understand that the successes of Special Relativity, and its apparent deduction from the above Einstein postulate, does not actually require that the speed of light be invariant, as Fitzgerald and Lorentz pointed out over 100 years ago, see discussions in [1, 19]. Rather the issue is whether the Special Relativity effects are caused by absolute motion of systems through a dynamical 3-space, or whether we have no 3-space and only a four-dimensional spacetime. So the question is about whether or not the 3-space can be detected by means of the anisotropy of light, since in this interpretation the speed is c only relative to this space locally.
This comes down to the issue of whether 3-space or spacetime actually exists, not whether the local Special Relativity effects are valid or not. As already stated there is overwhelming evidence from 8 experiments that the speed of light is anisotropic, and with a large anisotropy at the level of 1 part in 10^3: so these experiments show that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that the spacetime concept was only a mathematical construct - it does not exist as an entity of reality, it has no ontological significance. These developments have lead to a new physics in which the dynamics of the 3-space have been formulated, together with the required generalisations of the Maxwell equations (as first suggested by Hertz in 1890 ), and of the Schr¨odinger and Dirac equations, which have lead to the new emergent theory and explanation of gravity, with numerous confirmations of that theory from the data from 1 black hole systematics, light bending, spiral galaxy rotation anomalies, bore hole anomalies, etc. This data has revealed that the coupling constant for the self-interaction of the dynamical 3-space is none other than the fine structure constant ≈ 1/137 [9, 10, 11, 12], which suggests an emerging unified theory of quantum matter and a quantum foam description of the dynamical 3-space.
5 Conclusions The re-analysis herein of the Marinov one-way light-speed anisotropy experiment has left unexplained why his anisotropy velocity is so different from that detected by 8 other experiments. However we note that it is quite similar to the anisotropy vector arising from the CMB detections. The observed light-speed anisotropy in all the experiments is very large being in excess of 1 part in 10^3. This effect continues to be denied by mainstream physics, despite its detection involving at least 8 experiments extending over more than 100 years. What this effect shows is that reality involves a dynamical 3-space, as Lorentz suggested, and not a spacetime as Einstein suggested. Nevertheless, as discussed in , one can arrive at the spacetime as a well-defined mathematical construct, but which has no ontological significance. This means that the special relativity effects are caused by the actual absolute motion of systems through the 3-space as Lorentz long ago suggested. It also means that this 3-space is a dynamical system and the internal dynamics for this 3-space have already been determined , and which has lead to a new explanation for gravity, namely that it is caused by the refraction of either EM waves or quantum matter waves by the time dependence and inhomogeneities of the flow of the substructure of this 3-space. As discussed in [1, 19] many of these absolute motion experiments revealed fluctuations or turbulence in the velocity v, and these correspond to the gravitational waves. These wave effects occur in v at the 20% level, so even they could be detected in a modern mechanical light chopper apparatus, although the new optical fiber technique is even simpler. This research is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant 2005-2006: Development and Study of a New Theory of Gravity.
In the past I have postulated that the speed of light is not a constant due to some physics findings that suggest the Fine Structure Constant is variable.
This appears to be a classic questioning of the current paradigm, so even Alamo-Girl would expect hostility.
Pinging Alamo-Girl due to prominent mention, and because she’s one of my favorite freepers.
To: GodGunsGuts; betty boop; metmom; LeGrande; editor-surveyor; MHGinTN; TXnMA
Any thoughts on the Cosmologists who question the Big Bang (and what would seem to be the fanatical persecution of the same)?
Cosmic measurements since the 1960’s have ever been tested against the big bang/inflationary universe model. And because the model has held up to all those tests, most scientists accept the big bang/inflationary universe model. And no doubt the peer-reviewers would be extremely skeptical of theories which cannot explain away that ever increasing volume of measurements.
Hostility may follow, but I doubt to the extreme of the Intelligent Design issue.
There is a difference.
Evolution biology is a historical science much like anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. They do not have a complete record to view - i.e. not every thing that ever lived left a fossil and an artifact. So in these disciplines, the theory is the paradigm to explain the quantization of the historical continuum and is “the” test for any evidence which accumulates thereafter. Intelligent Design questions the paradigm per se claiming that “certain” features are best explained by an intelligent cause.
One could argue that physical cosmology is a historical science as well. But physical cosmology proposes many blueprints (theories) which fit the physical evidence. However, unlike evolution biology, there is no single paradigm theory for physical cosmology. Theories include imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic and many more. The “paradigm” in that field consists of this universe’s physical laws, physical causation and physical constants themselves.
However, if a scientist questioned that paradigm, e.g. denied the second law of thermodynamics, he might expect not only extreme skepticism but hostility as well.
In his fascinating essay, Refereed Journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?, Tipler questions whether revolutionary theories (e.g. relativity) would have ever made it through the peer review process.
That is an interesting question because truly whenever a scientist assails a paradigm as opposed to a theory, he effectively attacks the entire discipline and therefore should expect the defense to include self-righteous indignation.
Conversely, as cosmologist Delaporte once noted (paraphrased): science has grown so large and become so specialized that there are precious few big thinkers these days. Or to put it another way, there are precious few scientists who are truly qualified to peer review a revolutionary theory.
I do understand the value of peer review however I strongly aver that every scientist should have an outlet for his theories, no matter how revolutionary they might be - and that he should never be punished for thinking outside the box, i.e. the paradigm.
The Founders should have specified “Freedom of Thought” instead of letting it be inferred from “Freedom of Speech.” However, in their defense, they probably did not anticipate the pervasive “political correctness” of today’s world.
A final point: the big bang theory itself is the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science (Jastrow.) Genesis 1 and John 1 both declare “In the beginning.”
All physical cosmologies require space and time for physical causation. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. None can obviate the need for God the Creator, the First Cause of “all that there is” who is neither time bound nor space bound, uncreated.
No matter how far back they theoretical push the historical record (e.g. multi-verse theories) - they are always relying on space and time for physical causation. Without speaking of God, they can never say how much less why there is something instead of nothing at all.
When my brothers and sisters in Christ theologically question the big bang, they are discounting this important argument. Nevertheless, we must all declare the Truth as we have received it.
I agree with Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder - God’s revelation in Scripture and in Creation agree when one considers relativity and the big bang/inflationary model. From the inception of this universe to now, six days have elapsed relative to the inception - though from our space/time coordinates, billions of years have elapsed. The two are not mutually exclusive, they are relative. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1 is written from the Creator’s perspective - not the perspective of a creature. In my view, the perspective of Scripture does not change to man’s until Adam is banished to mortality.
9 posted on Friday, January 23, 2009 10:20:39 AM by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves
Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
(Submitted on 21 Aug 2006)
In 1991 Roland De Witte carried out an experiment in Brussels in which variations in the one-way speed of RF waves through a coaxial cable were recorded over 178 days. The data from this experiment shows that De Witte had detected absolute motion of the earth through space, as had six earlier experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California. The De Witte data reveals turbulence in the flow which amounted to the detection of gravitational waves. Similar effects were also seen by Miller, and by Torr and Kolen in their coaxial cable experiment. Here we bring together what is known about the De Witte experiment.
Comments: 10 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Journal reference: Progress in Physics, vol 3, 60-65, 2006
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0608205v1 [physics.gen-ph]
From: Reg Cahill [view email]
[v1] Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:16:05 GMT (156kb)
Anisotropy definition according to Wikipedia: is the property of being directionally dependent, as opposed to isotropy, which means homogeneity in all directions. It can be defined as a difference in a physical property (absorbance, refractive index, density, etc.) for some material when measured along different axes. An example is the light coming through a polarizing lens.
More interesting stuff.
Wisp Unification Theory - Reasons why Einstein was wrong
Reasons why Einstein was wrong
I will convince you that relativity is not only wrong it’s fundamentally flawed. But before I do, you must understand how it came about, and why it survives to this day.
How it came about
In 1887, Michelson-Morley failed in their attempt to measure ether flow past the earth. How could science explain Maxwell’s equations and Lorentz Force Law in terms of a preferred ether frame, if they couldn’t even detect it?
In 1905, Einstein provided an answer. He dismissed the preferred ether frame and developed a set of equations (special relativity) that allow the laws of physics to be the same in all inertial frames.
But there was a snag that needed a fix:
> The one-way speed of light in a vacuum has to have the same measured value in all inertial frames. Ironically, this doesn’t mean the actual one-way speed of light has to be constant, but relativity must make it appear so when measured. Under relativity’s rules, clocks are synchronized to ensure the speed of light stays constant, even though its actual speed could vary by +/-V (the observer’s speed through the ether).
Why it survives to this day
The world’s media promoted Einstein to genius status, almost god like, helping establish special relativity - illogical though it may be - as a fundamental pillar of modern physics. Undergraduates are told to accept it, not challenge it. If you question relativity, you challenge Einstein, take on the world, the odds are stacked against you, it’s something you don’t do.
The mathematical logic of relativity forms a closed loop, making it difficult (but not impossible) to challenge.
>According to relativity, space and time are joined, forming spacetime. But there is no way to prove spacetime actually exists. Absurd.
>According to relativity, moving objects undergo length contraction in their direction of motion. Again, there is no way to prove this.
>Relativity doesn’t allow you to measure the actual one-way speed of light (but scientists have found ways to do this and the results prove relativity wrong).
Physicists are reluctant to challenge relativity, even though many know it’s wrong. They fear ridicule, job loss, upsetting the status quo, making physics a laughing stock. Better to say nothing. Anyway, relativity works reasonably well. Admittedly, it has paradoxes, doesn’t comply with commonsense logic, is fundamentally flawed. But no one seems to care.
Physicists who do experiments and publish work that proves relativity false are ignored or labelled crackpot.
Physicists brought up on a diet of relativity, go on to develop “spacetime” theories, which include wormholes and multidimensional universes, yet fail to provide a single strand of proof they exist. Hardly surprising physics is in decline; it’s lost its way and needs to get back on track. It needs a major overhaul.
We should be concentrating on ether theories that focus on a preferred frame of reference - commonsense 3-D space theories, which embed relativistic effects (time dilation, etc). Wisp unification theory is one such theory.
Relativity is fundamentally flawed
A less-known fact about relativity is that it rigs the result so that the speed of light is constant for all observers, even though the ACTUAL speed of light could vary. It gets away with this because clocks are synchronized Einstein’s way - this is a convention used, it’s not reality. From then on, it gets wrongly reported that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and few challenge it. Worse still, it is used to define the metre, but this has never been check in practice.
To show what nonsense this is, we liken it to observers applying Einstein’s clock synchronization method to a swimmer (Mr Photon), who swims at constant speed through water. Observers, A, and B, stand 100m apart along the bank of the fast flowing river Ether. We know in reality, Mr Photon swims upstream (slower) and downstream (faster) because of the river’s speed. However, both observers, A, and B, will claim that Mr Photon swam at constant speed both ways between them. Clearly this is wrong. But using Einstein’s clock synchronization they always get a fixed result, regardless of the river’s speed. Likewise, the claim that the speed of light is constant is absurd. By synchronizing clocks Einstein’s way the results are rigged. Relativity is fundamentally flawed.
I posted this flaw on two “serious” pro-relativity forums, seeking responses.
> Universe Today did not show it, and gave no response.
> Physicsforums did not show it. They sent me a message banning me forever and called me crackpot.
It’s criminal that this nonsense theory of relativity continues to be taught as a fundamental pillar of modern physics. Einstein was not the genius we’re lead to believe, and his relativity theory is rigged and plain wrong. Many scientists know this, but say nothing. Those that speak out are ignored or called crackpots. The truth is relativity is fundamentally flawed - space and time are not joined; objects do not contract in length; the measured constant speed of light result is rigged by synchronizing clocks Einstein’s way; the theory is riddled with paradoxes, and defies commonsense logic.
L. Essen who built the first caesium clock (later used to define the second) wrote - Wireless World 1978 - Relativity and time signals. “the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of electromagnetic theory”. “The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts”. He was advised not to criticize relativity or his career prospects would be spoilt.
Several scientists have provided proof that the speed of light is not constant, but is affected by an ether flow. Although their work is ignored by the mainstream, their findings are in remarkable agreement. Evidence that shows special relativity to be false is now overwhelming and is listed below in some order of importance:
Wisp theory’s view
Special relativity is unnecessary. Einstein introduced it simply to explain the Lorentz force law, as he believed an ether theory could not support it. However, he’s wrong, see chapter 8 - equation set 8.4. It proves conclusively that there is no need for a special theory that joins space with time, as the ether medium can support the Lorentz force law and so endorse Lorentz symmetry.
The second postulate of special relativity - the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all inertial observers - has never been properly tested. The only tests carried out are based on two-way light speed measurements. These are not proper tests; as null results can be explained using a dilation factor know as jiggle. The only true test for the speed of light is to measure its speed one-way. It is truly amazing that a simple test using two clocks and a laser has never been done!
Although Einstein may not have needed the Michelson-Morley “null” result to complete his special theory of relativity, there is no denying that it forms the experimental basis for his theory. But this “null” result can easily be explained using an ether model, see the Michelson Morley experiment.
Special relativity is a simple theory, but it fails to comply with commonsense notions, and consequently paradoxes result. These issues are resolved by wisp relativity, which is a simple theory based on commonsense.
A second test, to measure a moving observer’s transverse Doppler effect also has never been done. It could be carried out on the International Space Station and it will prove that Einstein was wrong. Note: the affect of the Earth’s gravity on the clock frequencies is insignificant and has not been included, see appendix A for details.
Many distinguished professors claim that the predictions of special relativity’s Doppler effect cannot be explained by reference to a fluid type ether medium. But this is not so, as calculations of wisp’s Doppler effect prove that they match and better those predicted by Einstein. Indeed, special relativity’s Doppler equations can be derived from wisp relativity through a limit process, see chapter 9.
A third test that reveals a small offset in Fizeau’s experiment shown in appendix B can be used to prove relativity is wrong.
Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong
In August 2006, C E Navia et al report on a search for anisotropic light propagation as a function of laser alignment relative to the Earth’s velocity vector. A laser diffraction experiment was conducted to study light propagation in air. The experiment is easy to reproduce and it is based on simple optical principles. Two optical sensors (segmented photo-diodes) are used for measuring the position of diffracted light spots with a precision better than 0.1 µm. The goal is to look for signals of anisotropic light propagation as function of the laser beam alignment to the Earth’s motion (solar barycenter motion) obtained by COBE. Two raster search techniques have been used. First, a fixed laser beam in the laboratory frame that scans due to Earth’s rotation. Second, an active rotation of the laser beam on a turntable system. The results obtained with both methods show that the course of the light rays are affected by the motion of the Earth, and a predominant quantity of first order with a dc/c = -(betta)(1+2a) cos(theta) signature with a = -0.4106±0.0225 describes well the experimental results. This result differs in a amount of 18% from the Special Relativity Theory prediction and that supplies the value of a = -1/2 (isotropy). See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608223
In April 2006, Carlos. E. Navia and Carlos. R. A. Augusto report results on an “one-way light path” laser diffraction experiment as a function of the laser beam alignment relative to the Earth’s velocity vector obtained by COBE measurements of the Doppler shift in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). An amplified Doppler shift is observed in the diffraction images, and the effect is compatible with a “dipole” speed of light anisotropy due to Earth’s motion relative to the “CMBR rest frame”, with an amplitude of dc/c = 0.00123. This amplitude coincides with the value of the dipole temperature anisotropy dT/T = 0.00123 of the CMBR obtained by COBE. Our results point out that it is not possible to neglect the preferred frame imposed by the cosmology and they are well described by the Ether Gauge Theory (an extension of the Lorentz’s ether theory) and it satisfies the cosmological time boundary condition. See http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145v1.pdf
The De Witte experiment (a one-way electrical pulse experiment)
In 1991, Roland DeWitte carried out an experiment that proved the Earth moves through the ether. The duration of the experiment was 178 days and it’s clear proof that the Earth is affected by an ether wind of galactic origin.
A 5Mhz signal from clock A is passed down a coaxial cable of length 1.5km to clock B. The signals were compared using a digital phase comparator (like those used in PLL). The result was affected by the Earth’s rotation and had a period of 23hr 56min +/- 25s and is therefore the sidereal day. If the variation had a 24hr cycle - calendar day, it could be argued that the changes were due to some unknown local effect, but its period is the sidereal day, which implies its cause must be of galactic origin. For further information on this experiment, see http://ins.cornell.edu and http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/index.htm (Roland DeWitte died recently and his work was not published in a scientific journal).
The implications of this experiment are that the proposed one-way light speed test will produce a difference result that will be greater than 6.7nS due to a galactic ether flow component with a direction roughly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, and with a flow greater than 30km/s (Earth’s orbit speed).
Note: In 1990, Krisher et al performed a one-way light experiment by using two hydrogen-maser standards separated by 21km. The light from each maser is split and one-half modulates a laser light that travels one-way along a fibre optics (fiber optics) cable, and the other sent to a local detector. The relative frequency of the local and laser light are compared, and a variation in the frequency should show up due to the ether flowing passed the rotating Earth.
However, the experimental noise is too large to detect an ether flow - that is at rest with respect to the microwave background radiation - of the magnitude suggested by Miller, and the 5-day duration of the experiment was perhaps too short to detect the sidereal period variation. The experimental result was inconclusive.
In 1988, Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang, published the results of their experiment “Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light”.
Although they reported, “Our results have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light. A clear null result is obtained for a hypothesis in which anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation is used to define a preferred reference frame”, Harold Aspden’s considers their work important, as their experimental data clearly shows an eastward motion effect. And so it is possible to sense the speed of a test device using optical speed-of-light sensing wholly confined within the enclosure housing the apparatus.
See Harold Aspden’s Lecture No IIIb - One-way speed of light.
In 1986, E W Silvertooth claimed to have measured the 378 km/s cosmic motion using an optical sensor that measures the spacing between standing wave nodes. Although the experiment has not been confirmed, see
See Harold Aspden’s Lecture No IIIb - One-way speed of light
A modern one-way experiment using two clocks and a laser, as suggested by wisp theory is needed to resolve matters.
Dayton Miller’s ether drift experiments (similar to Michelson-Morley type experiments but more sensitive)
A review of his work by James DeMeo shows indisputable evidence that data collected by Miller was affected by the sidereal period and this is clear proof of a cosmological ether drift effect.
Normally any two-way Michelson-Morley type experiment carried out at sea-level would suffer the effect of jiggle dilation, and so produce a null result. But Miller’s insight in conducting his tests at altitude (Mt. Wilson - 6,000’ elevation) reduced the effect of jiggle by just enough to gain a clear positive result. He attributed the reduced ether drift velocity to an Earth-entrained ether effect - a type of ether drag, but this is incorrect as the cause is due to the jiggle dilation effect.
Unfortunately for Miller, the Einstein media craze pushed ether research into obscurity, and his efforts to prove his work were dismissed without proper scientific review. Einstein personally played a part in dismissing Miller’s work, knowing that supporting it would end his special and general relativity theories. Perhaps the pressure on Einstein was too great.
For a review of Dayton Miller’s work, see http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
The Sagnac Effect
An article that explains this clearly, but from relativity’s viewpoint is given at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.
The first few paragraphs explain the Sagnac effect (you can ignore the section showing loop and area calculations). The argument in support of relativity’s explanation is summed up on the basis that the device centres around one particular system of inertial coordinates (centre of circle), and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to it by Lorentz transformations.
But the flaw in this argument is simply this: What happens to the measuring clock when the radius of the circle becomes very large and the clock’s velocity small - a limit process?
The Sagnac effect still applies and the clock’s motion becomes more linear. In this limit process it is not unreasonable to treat the moving clock as an inertial reference frame in its own right (the Sagnac effect has been tested to great accuracy and so it perfectly reasonable to use a limit process to make the moving clock’s frame inertial). Now according to relativity, since this is an inertial frame, light must travel at speed c in both directions. But the Sagnac effect requires that the speed of light must be c+v and c-v respectively, and not c! This limit process shows that relativity contradicts itself, as the real measurements are made in the moving clock frame and not at the centre of the circle. An argument that focuses on one inertial frame that is the centre of the circle is the only way relativity can explain this effect, and so the case for relativity is very weak.
Also see, Ruyong Wang - Test of the one-way speed of light and the first-order experiment of Special Relativity using phase-conjugate interferometers.
In 1935, Einstein, with support from Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, proposed a thought experiment referred to as the ERP Paradox. If Einstein were right then quantum theory would be incomplete. But what if Einstein were wrong, would quantum theory be complete and special relativity wrong?
Yes. Results from EPR experiments do falsify special relativity, but rather that acknowledge this, the scientific community are happy to treat it as an unexplained anomaly. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance”, and quantum theorists treat it as a non-local event!
In an EPR experiment two subatomic particles interact and are moved a great distance apart. The particles are correlated so that the action of one affects the behaviour of the other. When measurements are made simultaneously on the separated particles, the results should be independent of each other’s quantum state, since they cannot share information, as it would need to travel between them at a speed greater than that of light. Experiments carried out to test this proposal have proven Einstein wrong. It appears that separated particles remain entangled and do somehow communicate their information at speeds faster than that of light.
Young’s double-slit experiment
When a particle passed through a single slit, it behaves as a solid particle. But when it has a choice of passing through one of two slits, it behaves as a wave!
Special relativity cannot explain why this happens, because:
1. It does not support the wave nature of quantum mechanics.
2. It does not support the concept of “absolute simultaneity”.
3. It does not support “invariance of distance”.
Wisp theory models the particle as a fractal pattern, which causes the ether space to displace in a wave-like manner as it moves through it. Making a measurement or disrupting the particle’s waves, cause them to collapse and reform into the original fractal pattern. The outcome of the experiment can be modelled on the interference patterns of waves moving in the ether, together with the concepts of “absolute simultaneity” and “invariance of distance”- all of which are supported by wisp theory.
Fast moving observer’s transverse Doppler effect.
An observer moving very fast through the ether will be affected by time dilation as a consequence of this motion. When the observer passes at 90 degrees to a light’s source - which is travelling at the same speed as the Earth through the ether - an increase in the light’s transverse Doppler frequency will be measured, and not a decrease, as relativity would have you believe.
I don’t know of any tests that have been done to prove this.
In the Ives-Stilwell experiment the motion of the high-speed ions relate to a case whereby the light’s source is travelling faster through the ether than the observer. And in this case wisp theory results agree with SR (The observer is effectively stationary “<0.0015c” and the light’s source moving fast). But if the motion of the observer through the ether were greater than the light’s source, then the transverse Doppler effect (TDE) would measure differently to SR - a change of similar magnitude but opposite in sign.
The case against Relativity is this: There has been no test of the transverse Doppler effect whereby the observer is moving faster through the ether than the light’s source. When tests are carried out were observers are moving fast, relativity will fail.
Tests pending that I believe will show a variation in the speed of light
An experiment to test for the anisotropy in the one-way speed of light is also being explored. This experiment looks for possible variations in the speed of light that are correlated with the existence of a “preferred frame.” http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Physics/People/faculty/lee.html
GPS feedback on these ideas from forum discussions
The proposed one-way experiment is a simple test that will prove special relativity (SR) wrong.
Against: A one-way test is done everyday by the Global Positioning System (GPS). It pinpoints positions on the Earth’s surface to less than a metre, by sending signals one-way from satellites to the Earth, and so the proposed one-way test is not needed.
My response: The positions of the satellites are predicted from time delay calculations that set the speed of light to a constant value, c. The US Department of Defence use radar to map the satellites to reference points on the Earth’s surface, and correction data is sent back to the satellites every few seconds. However, no real-time optical triangulation checks are carried out to verify that the satellites true positions exactly match their predicted positions. It’s possible to use wisp relativity (WR) to explain the GPS system. The only difference between WR and SR is that the satellites predicted positions are shifted by the ether flow and clocks are not synchronized according to Einstein’s way.
GPS is not a valid reason for not doing the proposed one-way test, regardless of how accurate its results appear to be.
For further information on GPS, see
The following argument shows why GPS does not qualify as a one-way light speed (OWLS) experiment.
Figure 1. One-way light speeds in an ether flow
Two satellites A and B are placed either side of the Earth (represented by point E), see figure 1. Let the satellites be 300,000 km from E and the speed of light be c = 300,000,000 m/s (to simplify results the satellites are over ten times the typical GPS distance). Let the speed of the ether flow relative to the Earth be V = 200 km/s.
According to SR light takes one second to travel from the Earth to either satellite and it takes two seconds to travel between satellites. To synchronize the clocks, a pulse of light is sent to each satellite at Earth time t=0, and satellite clocks register t=1 when they receive the light.
But with the ether flow light takes longer to reach B than it does to reach A, and consequently clock A gets set ahead of Earth time by 0.000666223 seconds and clock B get set behind Earth time by 0.000667111 seconds. These offsets compensate for lights motion through the ether. Both satellites now agree that light takes the same time to travel between them (2.000000889 seconds) and leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is constant both ways. But we know that light travels at speeds c-V and c+V between the satellites. Similarly the time for light to travel between the Earth and the satellites appears equal, but this is not the case as the clocks are not synchronized according to Einstein’s method, and the speed of light is not constant.
At these distances the satellites positions disagree with SR by (0.000000889 * c = 266.7) m. But typical GPS satellite orbits would be over ten times less than this. However, if the satellites’ orbital plane is perpendicular to the ether flow there will be no error in their orbits (due to the Earth’s time dilation effect, the perpendicular light speed stay at c, regardless of ether speed). So the GPS difference could vary from 0 to about 24 m, depending on the direction of ether flow. GPS satellites are not checked optically to this accuracy and so their true orbital positions are not known.
We conclude that the GPS signals that travel between the Earth and satellites cannot be used to test the speed of light in one direction and so cannot be used as an argument to dismiss the proposed one-way experiment.
GPS experiments that show the speed of light is not constant
A paper written by Ruyong Wang clearly shows that by using GPS you can prove that the velocity of a receiver relative to the Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame affects the speed of light, and so special relativity is false.
Go to link http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf
Wisp theory proposes that the speed of light is constant only with respect to absolute wisp space and not to an ECI frame. It’s only the way GPS satellite clocks synchronize that appears to make the Earth a special reference frame, either way, the results predicted will show special relativity to be false.
The Hafele-Keating experiment (not a problem for special relativity, but wisp theory provides a better solution)
In 1971, Hafele and Keating made airline flights around the world to test the effect of time dilation on moving atomic clocks. Although special relativity’s predictions and the results of the experiment agree reasonably well, it does not give a reason why it only works if the line through the Earth’s axis of rotation is chosen as its reference frame. And it gives no reason why this causes a real physical change in the actual times of the atomic clocks.
Wisp theory’s predictions match those of special relativity. However, it rightly uses the ether as the absolute reference frame, and it clearly explains why the clocks are affected by time dilation.
A remarkable discovery of wisp’s calculations is that atomic clocks on the Earth’s surface suffer from sidereal period fluctuations of around 0.7 nS. This is caused by the rotation of the Earth altering the absolute speed at which the clocks move relative to the ether flow.
In the example below, the direction of the ether flow is taken as being perpendicular to the ecliptic plane (Dalton Miller’s findings), although this is not important. And in order to simplify matters the values used in the example differ from those of the real experiment.
Wisp’s equation set for Hafele-Keating experiment continued below
The U.S. Naval Observatory Master Clock keeps accurate to 0.1nS each day and it is used by other systems to ensure they keep within narrow tolerances (wisp theory predicts the master clock’s time will fluctuate by +/- 0.5nS). At best these systems (including GPS) are accurate to about 10nS. Soon newer systems will be able to detect the predicted sidereal period variations in equatorial clocks.
GPS satellites would be affected by sidereal period fluctuations ranging from 0nS (orbits perpendicular to ether flow) to 16nS (orbits parallel to ether flow). However, fluctuation changes to their clocks could be interpreted as variations in orbit, and so the effects are masked. Remember, we do not know with accuracy the actual positions of GPS satellites; we can only make predictions based on models. And so it would be sensible to measure this effect on Earth based clocks close to the equator.
For further details on the Hafele-Keating experiment, see
The reader may find the article in the link below interesting. Alan Kostelecky discusses research into Lorentz symmetry with regard to a directional component in spacetime. So far no evidence has been found of deviation from observer Lorentz invariance. Wisp theory predicted this, see chapter 8 # 8.3, “There can be no doubt that the ether is responsible for the effects of the electromagnetic force, and since the force is the same in all frames, Lorentz symmetry - also known as observer Lorentz invariance - is supported in an ether flow”.
The directional component is simply the ether wind, and it causes tiny sidereal fluctuations in the rates at which clocks tick. However, observers and measuring devices that travel with the clocks will be unable to measure these changes, as their systems undergo equal change, which cancels out the effect. An independent observer using a reference clock situated at the North/South Pole (a different inertial frame) would be able to measure the effect. See
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/ and http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7/1#pwfea1_03-04
Although wisp theory’s views may differ to the theories on these websites, we all share the view that Einstein’s relativity is false. These sites expose weaknesses in Einstein’s relativity, and give insight into the obstacles faced by those who challenge his theory.
L. Essen. Wireless World 1978 - Relativity and time signals. “the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of electromagnetic theory”. See
Light Speed Invariance is a Remarkable Illusion - Stephan Gift. See
Challenging Einstein’s Special Relativity: Herbert Dingle - Science at the Crossroads. See
Science Mysteries - Reasons to doubt the validity of Relativity Theory. See
Physicsmyths.org.uk - special relativity. See
Li Zifeng. The Essence of Special Relativity and Its Influence on Science-Philosophy and Society. See http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/8034-essence-special-relativity-its-influence-science.html
H. Aspden 1983 - The Scope for first-order tests of light speed anisotropy. See
Jones, BD - A method for Determining Distant Simultaneity and Whether Light is One-Way Isotropic. See, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-1/jones-f1.html
R.F.Norgan - Aether theory, see
Professor Reg Cahill - Einstein’s wrong news article and website
Professor Reg Cahill - The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005. A critical review of the evidence, see
Professor Reg Cahill - The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves, see
Bryan G. Wallace - The Farce of Physics, see
David Pratt - Einstein’s fallacies, see
Harold Aspden Relativity - Joke or swindle? See
R. Webster Kehr - The detection of ether, see
An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking. by John Doan
Einstein’s Relativity on fire again. by John Doan
David de Hilster’s site - Documentary film about Einstein being wrong - released date late 2007.
2006 Louis Savain - Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics, see
Relativity skeptics and aether proponents, see
Other useful sites
2008, details about new atomic clocks
Natural Philosophy Alliance
Response to Tom Roberts, “What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom presents statements that are biased in favour of SR. He says:
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame. In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).
My response to the following comments is in italics.
[Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.]
“The oneway experiments he then lists are based on Einstein’s clock synchronization method (which we know is rigged to fix the speed of light to be constant). The “large class” refers to ether theories. Tom believes that experiments that are inconsistent with SR are not acceptable, and his criticism of them shows personal bias”.
[These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame.]
“The fact that SR rigs the result to give a constant speed of light is not mentioned. And even if an observer moving through the ether detected anisotropy, relativity would reject it”.
[In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.]
“This is not true. The time dilation effects due to slow clock transport are negligible and can be ignored. But, there is no experimental evidence to back up his claim. If slow clock transport experiments are done they will show up sidereal time variations due to ether flow, which are predicted by ether theories but inconsistent with SR. See Wisp’s one-way speed of light experiments”.
All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).]
“This is not true. Wisp theory predicts clocks on the equator suffer sidereal period variations of +/- 0.7nS, which cannot be accounted for with SR. There is one important thing that Tom fails to mention about SR: the constancy of the speed of light result is fixed (rigged), and such SR should be wholly rejected”.
One of my favorite cosmologists, besides of course our very own FReepers Betty Boop & Alamo Girl, is D. Paul LaViolette
SubQuantum Kinetics, wide ranging unifying cosmology theory by Dr. Paul LaViolette
THE STARBURST FOUNDATION ^ | January 2007 | Dr. Paul LaViolette
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:00:43 PM by Kevmo
In a previous thread
I had posted this stuff but it looks so intricate that it needs its own thread.
Dr. LaViolette is kinda wacky & strange, maybe like Einstein would have been if he had not gained recognition for his theory. He was terminated from the US Patent office because he believed in Cold Fusion.
Cold fusion confusion the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions incredible interpretation of religion in LaViolette v. Daley
Army Lawyer, March, 2002 by Drew A. SwankIs cold fusion (1) the equivalent of Catholicism? Is believing in extraterrestrials the same as being an Episcopalian? In the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision of LaViolette v. Daley, (2) the EEOC held that the complainants unusual beliefs regarding cold fusion, cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, and other scientific beliefs are entitled to the same protection in the workplace from discrimination as religious beliefs. (3) This note, by examining the facts of the case, the relevant statutes, agency regulations, and case law, will demonstrate that the EEOCs ruling has impermissibly expanded the definition of religion to the point that it has created a new cause of actionable discriminationsomething the EEOC has neither the power nor the authority to do.
Paul LaViolette had been a patent examiner with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) until he was fired on 9 April 1999. (4) On 28 June 1999, LaViolette filed a formal complaint of discrimination, alleging that the PTO fired and refused to rehire him based upon his unconventional beliefs about cold fusion and other technologies. (5) The Department of Commerce, of which the PTO is part, dismissed LaViolettes complaint on 13 September 1999, for failure to state a claim within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (6)
LaViolette appealed the dismissal, arguing that `discrimination against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of discrimination on the basis of religion. Therefore, he contends, his scientific beliefs in cold fusion are protected. (7) The EEOC reversed the agencys dismissal of his complaint and remanded it for further processing. (8) While an agency must dismiss a complaint of discrimination that fails to state a claim, (9) here the EEOC held:
In determining which beliefs are protected under Title VII, the Supreme
Court has held that the test is whether the belief professed is sincerely
held and whether it is, in his own scheme of things, religious....
Moreover, in defining religious beliefs, our guidelines note that the fact
that no religious group espouses such beliefs ... will not determine
whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee ...
In the instant case, complainant argues that his unconventional beliefs
about cold fusion and other technologies should be viewed as a religion and
therefore protected. Complainant claims he was terminated and denied the
opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold
fusion beliefs. Therefore, under the applicable law noted above, we find
that the agency improperly dismissed complainants claim of discrimination
for failure to state a claim. (10)
While the EEOC subsequently stated that it did not determine the validity of LaViolettes complaint, (11) by allowing the case to go forward, it has extended Title VII protection to scientific beliefs. In doing so, the EEOC not only misapplied its own regulations, but also ignored the statutes and case law that govern it and exceeded its statutory mandate as well.
The ultimate question presented by LaViolettes complaint is whether his scientific beliefs deserve the same protection from discrimination as anothers religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (12) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (13) It defines religion to include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employees or prospective employees religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employers business. (14) Title VII has been interpreted to protect against requirements of religious conformity and as such protects those who refuse to hold, as well as those who hold, specific religious beliefs. (15)
The EEOC, responsible for enforcing Title VII, (16) is required by its own regulations to adopt Title VIIs definition of religion. (17) As Title VIIs definition of religion is circular (religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice), (18) the EEOCs regulation further adds that
[i]n most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at
issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the
Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical
beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the
strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States,
398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard
in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or
the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to
belong may not accept such a belief will not determine whether the belief
is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase
religious practice as used in these Guidelines includes both religious
observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).
And that brings us round to today, where I’ve discovered that I and others have the opportunity to put our money where our mouths are on Cold Fusion, possibly being among the first to make money from it.
Check out the contract at Intrade for Cold Fusion. Im putting my money where my mouth is and have bid 500 contracts at $5.50, so if anyone thinks Im a fool they can make a bunch of money from me. Just buy the contracts.
Dr Yoshiaki Aratas Cold Fusion Experiment
Dr Aratas experiment to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009 M Trade
Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
5.5 98.5 23.0 139 0
The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 76 replies · 854+ views
Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 69 replies · 926+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
And we can’t let all this cosmology stuff go by without a mention of the cool book
“Don’t Let Science get you down, Timothy” by our very own freepers, Alamo-girl and Betty Boop.
I have no argument. Something doesn't come from nothing.
It also means that this 3-space is a dynamical system and the internal dynamics for this 3-space have already been determined , and which has lead to a new explanation for gravity, namely that it is caused by the refraction of either EM waves or quantum matter waves by the time dependence and inhomogeneities of the flow of the substructure of this 3-space.
***I favor the refraction of EM Waves. This would suggest that SubQuantum Kinetics is close to the target and it would explain the Befield Brown Electrogravitics Effect and the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
* H.E. Wilhelm (University of Utah) ^Ö Explanation of Anomalous
Unipolar Induction in Corotating Conductor-Magnet Arrangements by
W. Ehrenberg and R. W. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, B62, 8 (1949)
Ten years earlier than Aharonov and Bohm, Ehrenberg and Siday
formulated the science of electron optics by defining the electron
refractive-index as a function of electromagnetic potential. Near the
end of their paper, they discuss “a curious effect”, which is exactly the
Aharonov-Bohm effect. On the two sides of a magnetic flux, the vector potential has
different values. This means a different refractive index for two
geometrically equivalent paths. This difference in refractive index
would cause an observable phase shift.
Liu’s theory predicts that the electromagnetic potential acts like
a kind of “refractive index” to wave propogation, and is similar in
some respects to what was predicted in the earlier paper on electron
optics by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949. The result is that in some
circumstances an electromagnetic potential causes a change in wavelength,
and in other circumstances causes a change in phase (AB effect). An effect
on wavelength would be manifested as a change in the envelope of the
interference pattern, rather than merely a shift in the pattern. In Liu’s
theory an exchange of energy and momentum becomes possible. His theory
is relatively easy to test and verify, but oddly or not, no one has yet
done so. Maybe because we already “know” it can’t be true?
I also have the sneaking suspicion that this surfer dude would be correct and that there’s an amazing symmetry to this universe.
Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything - Telegraph
An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which as received rave reviews from scientists, ...
The Telegraph link doesn’t work for me.
I think the only way you’ll get the theory of relativity to get seriously critiqued is when some “crackpot” uses some of these alternate theories and invents a practical gadget that millions of house-wives use to levitate the furniture as they vacuum the house!
While I’m being slightly sarcastic, there is also truth to what I’m saying! Invent a gadget or useful repeatable process that uses these new theories which turn the notion of relativity upside down and then the thought control orthodoxy will also then be turned on its ear!
I think Dr. Yoshiaki Arata’s gas phase nanoscale approach to cold fusion will generate such a gadget, but it won’t be available to housewives. Mainstream Physics is getting turned on its ear this year; unfortunately on the political scale, it’s just in time for zer0bama to take credit. Oh well, them’s the breaks...
I love Free Republic for the breadth of its content. Every day there is something that opens my mind to something new to me.
Well, then, here’s some more mind opening stuff in the area of speed of light constancy.
I encouraged a Physics student to go into this many years ago. He was looking for an area to explore in Physics to do his PhD and I suggested that the speed of light showed signs of not being a constant. If he had pursued my suggestion, he’d be at the top of his game right now. So here is my similar suggestion to others: Don’t take for granted those points at the far end of the graph. If they all “conspire”, it could mean that they are all dependent upon some variable that we have not yet discovered. One of the greatest physicists in our generation, Richard Feynman, won the Nobel prize following this line of attack. I’ll reprint some of his story here, which I found also posted online at
The 7 Percent Solution
The problem was to find the right laws of beta decay. There appeared to be two particles, which were called a tau and a theta. They seemed to have almost exactly the same mass, but one disintegrated into two pions, and the other into three pions. Not only did they seem to have the same mass, but they also had the same lifetime, which is a funny coincidence. So everybody was concerned about this.
At that particular time I was not really quite up to things: I was always a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I was keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What would be the consequences if the parity rule were wrong?”
So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequences if the parity rule was wrong?”
Murray Gell-Mann often teased me about this, saying I didn’t have the nerve to ask the question for myself. But that’s not the reason. I thought it might very well be an important idea.
Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned — such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A.”
I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”
They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting — the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory!
That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.
I was very excited, and kept on calculating, and things that fit kept on tumbling out: they fit automatically, without a strain. I had begun to forget about the 9 percent by now, because everything else was coming out right.
The next morning when I got to work I went to Wapstra, Boehm, and Jensen, and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.”
Christy, who was there, too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?”
“The one from So-and-So’s book.”
“But that’s been found out to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.”
Then I remember the 9 percent. ....
I went out and found the original article on the experiment that said the neutron-proton coupling is T, and I was shocked by something. I remembered reading that article once before (back in the days when I read every article in the Physical Review — it was small enough). And I remembered, when I saw this article again, looking at that curve and thinking, “That doesn’t prove anything!”
You see, it depended on one or two points at the very edge of the range of the data, and there’s a principle that a point on the edge of the range of the data — the last point — isn’t very good, because if it was, they’d have another point further along. And I had realized that the whole idea that neutron-proton coupling is T was based on the last point, which wasn’t very good, and therefore it’s not proved. I remember noticing that!
And when I became interested in beta decay, directly, I read all these reports by the “beta-decay experts,” which said it’s T. I never looked at the original data; I only read those reports, like a dope. Had I been a good physicist, when I thought of the original idea back at the Rochester Conference I would have immediately looked up “how strong do we know it’s T?” — that would have been the sensible thing to do. I would have recognized right away that I had already noticed it wasn’t satisfactorily proved.
Since then I never pay any attention to anything by “experts.” I calculate everything myself. When people said the quark theory was pretty good, I got two Ph.D.s, Finn Ravndal and Mark Kislinger, to go through the whole works with me, just so I could check that the thing was really giving results that fit fairly well, and that it was a significantly good theory. I’ll never make that mistake again, reading the experts’ opinions. Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes, and learn what not to do, and that’s the end of you.
Evidences of scientific controversy:
LSCI 106: ONLINE RESEARCH 1: INTRODUCTION TO ONLINE RESEARCH
Is the speed of light slowing down over time?
The punch-line to the familiar joke says the only things you can count on are death and taxes. In the scientific world of physics one key fundamental that could be counted on is the speed of light remaining constant at a speed of 186,000 miles a second, over time. Much of physics is based on this assumption. But now the times, they are a-changin’, and so are the fundamental constants of physics, an international group of physicists reports. After analyzing light from distant quasars, the team has concluded that the fine-structure constant, which is related to the speed of light, has shifted over time (Seife 1410).
Why is this such a big deal? Einsteins Theory of Relativity would be wrong. The universe would not be as old as previously thought. While scientists cannot find over 90% of the matter needed to make the Big Bang a feasible theory, faster light speeds would explain it while rendering it unworkable. It would agree and substantiate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Much of astronomical theory would need to be rethought. One thing is for certain there will be much debate and research regarding the constancy of the speed of light.
In 1989 it was claimed that room-temperature, resonant-bar, gravitational-wave detectors saw events that correlated with supernova 1987A. But in the very paper that announced this finding, M Aglietta and co-workers said that if our current understanding was correct, the energy seen by the detectors was equivalent to the complete conversion of 2400 solar masses into gravitational waves (1989 Il Nuovo Cimento 12C 1 75) The authors agreed that this was incredible, but nevertheless thought they should report what they had found in print in case something odd was going on. Nearly everyone else thought that the result was wrong, and a critical paper was published that tried to show that it was the outcome of inadvertent statistical massage (1995 Phys. Rev. D 51 2644). Last year, in an internal report from the University of Rome La Sapienza, the original authors rejected the criticism.
Consider the deep disagreement about SN1987A discussed above. Observations, better experimentation, more knowledge, more advanced theories and clearer thinking have not settled the argument - at least, not to the satisfaction of all parties. What happens in deep disputes like this is summed up in the grim Planck dictum: scientists do not give up their disputed ideas, they only die.
Raina said: There actually is some real scientific controversy over whether or not the speed of light has changed.
This would not rescue Young Earth Creationism, note the bold font. Consider SN1987A: SN1987A was a supernova observed in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 1987. (The progenator was a star blue white supergiant catalogued as SK-69 202). SN1987A has a primary gas ring that allows us to calculate it’s distance using simple triangulation. That distance is 168,000 light years. Ergo: SK-69 202 blew up 168,000 years ago or about 160,000 years before you believe the univrerse was created if you’re defending YEC. So we know the universe is older than 6,000 - 10,000 years years, because in 1987 we observed the light of a super nova which actually occurred in 166,000 BC.
We also know the light from 1987A has not slowed down during transit because if it had, among other enormous physical problems, events on 1987A would be in ‘slow motion’ and they’re not, again direct observation. SN1987A also gives us rock solid evidence that radiodecay processes operated at the same rate in the remote past as they do today. During the super nova explosion exotic isotopes were created with short half lives such as cobalt 56 and nickel 55. We can observe the decay sequence of those isotopes in the spectral emission of 1987A. They match exactly the empirically measured rates on earth which are also the theoretically predicted rates universally applicable in the entire universe. Thus SN1987A is a ‘twofer’ in falsifying YEC.
No doubt Cahill has and will continue to be confronted by indignation among his peers for questioning via his "process physics" the very successful postulate of four dimensional space/time.
The four dimensional space/time continuum is deeply rooted in Newtonian physics, carried over as a postulate in Relativity and subjected to many falsification attempts over the years. That the speed of light is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame, is also a postulate of Relativity and has been subjected to many challenges over the years.
The following link summarizes the history of experiments questioning Special Relativity and its postulates, e.g. the speed of light. Both Marinov's and Cahill's experiments are mentioned and critiqued.
Evidently both models seek to integrate information theory with physics and cosmology.
The need to detect any anisotropy has challenged physicists from the 19th century to the present day, particularly following the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The problem arose when Maxwell in 1861 successfully computed the speed of light c from his unified theory of electric and magnetic fields: but what was the speed c relative to? There have been many attempts to detect any supposed light-speed anisotropy, and... there have so far been 8 successful and consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed... The key point here is not whether the predicted Special Relativity effects are valid or invalid, for the experimental evidence is overwhelming that these predictions are valid, but rather whether the Lorentz or Einstein interpretation of Special Relativity is correct... the issue is whether the Special Relativity effects are caused by absolute motion of systems through a dynamical 3-space, or whether we have no 3-space and only a four-dimensional spacetime. So the question is about whether or not the 3-space can be detected by means of the anisotropy of light, since in this interpretation the speed is c only relative to this space locally. This comes down to the issue of whether 3-space or spacetime actually exists, not whether the local Special Relativity effects are valid or not. As already stated there is overwhelming evidence from 8 experiments that the speed of light is anisotropic, and with a large anisotropy at the level of 1 part in 10^3: so these experiments show that a dynamical 3-space exists, and that the spacetime concept was only a mathematical construct - it does not exist as an entity of reality, it has no ontological significance.Thanks Kevmo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.