# About "a New Light In Physics"

Alternative theory

29 replies to this topic

### #18 A-wal

A-wal

Creating

• Members
• 1316 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 08:30 AM

You just need to understand that measurements made of time and the spatial dimension in question from different frames will always disagree (that's what makes them different frames) but that doesn't create any kind of logical contradiction precisely because they're different frames of reference.

This should help. If the twins end up back in the same frame of reference then assuming that they both accelerated equally the whole time (just assume that their accelerations mirrored each other to keep it simple), they'll be the same age because each saw the other in exactly the same way that the other saw them.

Now if one accelerated more than the other they wouldn't be the same age when they meet back up in the same reference frame because an accelerating object experiences less proper time (the time they experience from their own perspective) than an inertial object, so one the accelerating twin will end up younger.

This isn't a contradiction because the symmetry is broken. The situation of each seeing the other in the same way that they see themselves doesn't apply if one accelerates and they other doesn't. So a difference in relative velocity just creates a difference in perspective but acceleration is the only thing that can create an actual difference in proper time.

Hopefully that helps and doesn't just confuse the issue.

### #19 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 09:49 AM

Some other topic of interest?

May be something about the theory itself in spite of the considerations against Relativity Theory?

Anyone else interested?

Edited by martillo, 28 October 2016 - 09:59 AM.

### #20 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 10:23 AM

I would like to receive opinions on any of the many topics of my called "A New Light In Physics" work directly available at: www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics.

Like A-Wal, I didn’t get far reading your work before deciding that it is wrong.

In 1.2 Basis of the new theories, your write "The Emission Theory which proposes that the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the source is then necessary valid (Michelson-Morley experiment)".

However, the M-M experiment showed that the emission theory of light is not correct.

For many years after it was first performed in 1887, physicist questioned whether this difficult experiment, which relied on light from stars and the motion of the Earth around the Sun, actually disproved the emission theory. However, present day instruments provide easier experiments to determine whether the speed of light depends on the velocity of its source or not. For example, if it did, a typical GPS satellite constellation would require adjustments for the velocity of the satellites. A bit of simple geometry shows that the horizontal position error that would result if the speed of light depended on the velocity of its source is on the order of 30 m, which is many times the greater than the accuracy of high-quality present day GPS receivers, which is about +/- 5 m.

A theory that denies the postulates of Special Relativity is tempting, because it’s easy to use. However, it’s contradicted by experimental evidence, so must be rejected. We can’t accept a theory that makes demonstrably wrong predictions, even if it’s pleasantly simple.

### #21 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 10:36 AM

Like A-Wal, I didn’t get far reading your work before deciding that it is wrong.

In 1.2 Basis of the new theories, your write "The Emission Theory which proposes that the velocity of light depends on the velocity of the source is then necessary valid (Michelson-Morley experiment)".

However, the M-M experiment showed that the emission theory of light is not correct.

For many years after it was first performed in 1887, physicist questioned whether this difficult experiment, which relied on light from stars and the motion of the Earth around the Sun, actually disproved the emission theory. However, present day instruments provide easier experiments to determine whether the speed of light depends on the velocity of its source or not. For example, if it did, a typical GPS satellite constellation would require adjustments for the velocity of the satellites. A bit of simple geometry shows that the horizontal position error that would result if the speed of light depended on the velocity of its source is on the order of 30 m, which is many times the greater than the accuracy of high-quality present day GPS receivers, which is about +/- 5 m.

A theory that denies the postulates of Special Relativity is tempting, because it’s easy to use. However, it’s contradicted by experimental evidence, so must be rejected. We can’t accept a theory that makes demonstrably wrong predictions, even if it’s pleasantly simple.

CraigD, seems you are confusing something. Michelson Morley Experiment disprove the Aether theory of light while is compatible with the "Emission" or "Ballistic" Theory of light. Even your link at Wikipedia says that:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887."

In Section 8.2 of my manuscript I show with a nice graph how this happens: http://www.geocities..._experiment.htm

Edited by martillo, 28 October 2016 - 10:42 AM.

### #22 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 11:43 AM

Thanks, martillo. I was completely wrong is saying the result of the Michelson Morley experiment disproves ballistic theories of light, which predict that the speed of light depends on the relative velocity of the emitter and receiver of light.

It disproves only aether theories, which predict that the speed of light depends on the velocity of the receiver relative to an absolute, privileged point of reference. Because the M-M experiment didn’t directly measure the travel time of light over a known distance, only the difference in distance how far light traveled in a strait path compared to a perpendicular (90o) path, it wouldn’t be sensitive to the it’s velocity relative the light’s source, only to the hypothesized absolute reference frame.

The example I gave using the GPS, though, does involve directly measure the travel time of light from satellites with different velocities relative to the receiver. GPS determines the distance between each satellite and the receiver based on the directly measured travel time of the radio frequency light emitted by the satellite and the assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.

How do you explain that the travel time measured by the GPS is not shorter for satellites moving toward the receiver than for ones moving away from it?

### #23 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 12:03 PM

CraigD:

The example I gave using the GPS, though, does involve directly measure the travel time of light from satellites with different velocities relative to the receiver. GPS determines the distance between each satellite and the receiver based on the directly measured travel time of the radio frequency light emitted by the satellite and the assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.

How do you explain that the travel time measured by the GPS is not shorter for satellites moving toward the receiver than for ones moving away from it?

Well, I didn't consider that phenomenon before but I ask if the difference in the times of the two cases are couldn't be included into the uncertainty inherent to the GPS systems. For instance I think GPS uncertainty positioning is around some meters what would give may be more uncertainty tan the timing difference you mention. I also Heard about sattelites clocks to take relativistic effects into account but I think they are neglihible because the clocks are continuously synchronized with clocks at Earth mainly to correct posible errors in the imprecisión in the electronics sistems like for example "thermal noise".

So I would not consider the GPS system as any posible proof for Relativity Theory.

### #24 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 06:08 PM

Well, I didn't consider that phenomenon before but I ask if the difference in the times of the two cases are couldn't be included into the uncertainty inherent to the GPS systems.

I recommend you consider GPS and similar light time-of-travel based technology.

The accuracy of typical implementation of GPS is about +/- 5 m for navigation systems. For surveying systems, which use 2 different signal frequencies to correct for atmospheric effects, the accuracy is around 0.3 m.

Although implementations of GPS involve complicated calculations, we can avoid the need to master these details by considering the velocities of its satellites.

GPS satellites have nearly circular orbits of about 8393000 m radius (2020 km altitude), so have orbital speed of about 6891 m/s. For a satellite about 30o from the receiver, it’s velocity toward or away from receiver is therefore about v=5833 m/s, distance about d=4291000 m. It the speed of the signal depended on the speed of the satellite, the calculated horizontal position would be incorrect by $d - \frac{d c}{c+v} \dot= 83 \,\mbox{m}$. Such a large error is many times greater than GPS’s accuracy, so would be obvious.

Therefore, I believe the “experiment” of operating the GPS refutes the ballistic theory of light.

GPS is not mentioned in common encyclopedias and textbook, I think, because the theory was considered discredited by other observations and arguments by decades before systems as precise as the GPS were available, and because experiments with much faster moving photon emitters, such as mesons traveling over 0.99 c, show larger disagreements with the theory’s predictions. I like using GPS as an example, though, because many people are familiar with it.

### #25 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 03:31 AM

I recommend you consider GPS and similar light time-of-travel based technology.

The accuracy of typical implementation of GPS is about +/- 5 m for navigation systems. For surveying systems, which use 2 different signal frequencies to correct for atmospheric effects, the accuracy is around 0.3 m.

Although implementations of GPS involve complicated calculations, we can avoid the need to master these details by considering the velocities of its satellites.

GPS satellites have nearly circular orbits of about 8393000 m radius (2020 km altitude), so have orbital speed of about 6891 m/s. For a satellite about 30o from the receiver, it’s velocity toward or away from receiver is therefore about v=5833 m/s, distance about d=4291000 m. It the speed of the signal depended on the speed of the satellite, the calculated horizontal position would be incorrect by $d - \frac{d c}{c+v} \dot= 83 \,\mbox{m}$. Such a large error is many times greater than GPS’s accuracy, so would be obvious.

Therefore, I believe the “experiment” of operating the GPS refutes the ballistic theory of light.

GPS is not mentioned in common encyclopedias and textbook, I think, because the theory was considered discredited by other observations and arguments by decades before systems as precise as the GPS were available, and because experiments with much faster moving photon emitters, such as mesons traveling over 0.99 c, show larger disagreements with the theory’s predictions. I like using GPS as an example, though, because many people are familiar with it.

I'm not sure about your calculations but I haven't heard anywhere about GPS satellites disproving the Emission Theory of light so I stay with the possibility.

About the mesons as photons emitters you mention may be you are referring to Alvaeger experiment (https://www.uam.es/p...eger-PL1964.pdf) but this experiment is invalidated because they neglect the extinction effect while the gamma rays pass through some "walls" (may be just the "thin mylar window") of the experiment setup which nullifies the source component of the photons' final velocity.

As for Sagnac Effect, if you think about, it has a new interpretation in my manuscript: http://www.geocities...gnac_effect.htm

Actually there's no experiment really disproving the Emission Theory of light.

Please give a chance for "A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities...wlightinphysics) to be taken in consideration...

Edited by martillo, 29 October 2016 - 04:10 AM.

### #26 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 31 October 2016 - 01:07 PM

About the mesons as photons emitters you mention may be you are referring to Alvaeger experiment (https://www.uam.es/p...eger-PL1964.pdf) but this experiment is invalidated because they neglect the extinction effect while the gamma rays pass through some "walls" (may be just the "thin mylar window") of the experiment setup which nullifies the source component of the photons' final velocity.

Your mention of the Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem, which despite being about 100 years old, wasn’t included in my modern physics education, led me to a wonderful epiphany.

I imagined that the reduced speed of light in non-vacuum media described by its refractive index occurred because the absorption and emission of photons by electrons of the atoms took some small amount of time. Photons always travel at the speed of light in vacuum (let’s ignore this thread’s question of relative to what? for the moment), regardless of whether they’re traveling through large volumes of pure vacuum (refractive index n=1) or dense transparent crystals (eg typical glass, n=~1.5). The analogy photons being cars traveling along a highway with frequent toll booths was my attempt to understand how photons could always travel at c in the vacuum between other particles, yet travel slower than c through materials like air or glass.

Like most “pseudoclassical” interpretations of quantum mechanics, mine was wrong. Photons aren’t classical bodies that stop and go like cars. In QM, (specifically, electrodynamics) refraction is expressed as the result of the probability-weighted sum of the all possible paths of a particle interacting with other particles, which is equivalent to the quantum wave function of all the particles. The effective speed of a signal – a photon entering and leaving a volume of space – comes from the wave functions of the photons from the atoms, which give a speed of exactly c, interfering with one another to produce a composite wave function giving a speed of $\frac{c}{n}$.

I'm not sure about your calculations but I haven't heard anywhere about GPS satellites disproving the Emission Theory of light so I stay with the possibility.

I still encourage you to study the GPS. Although technically complicated, it’s literature is publicly available, and unlike a high-precision optics experiment, the expensive (about $US 12,000,000,000 intially,$750,000,000/year ongoing) space-based part of GPS is built and available for free use by everyone, while receivers are inexpensive enough that nearly everyone can afford one.

Please feel free to check my calculations. All the needed data is available online, and the math and geometry needed is high-school level.

If you follow through with this research and work, I think you conclude that if the ballistic theory of light was true, the GPS algorithm would need to have adjustments added for the system to be usable, and that since it contains no such adjustment, and GPS works with high accuracy, the ballistic theory of light is wrong.

Please give a chance for "A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities...wlightinphysics) to be taken in consideration...

I’ve read your webpages, and have some questions unrelated to the constancy of c, but until you acknowledge the need for your theory to agree with Relativity, I can’t, and I doubt many others will be able to take you seriously. Denying the conclusion reached in many experiments that c is constant regardless of the velocity of the light source and lab is nearly certain to brand you a relativity denier and a crank in the eyes of most scientists and science enthusiasts.

### #27 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 01 November 2016 - 01:20 AM

No way to reconcile with Relativity Theory.

Thanks both for giving the opinions I asked.
Enough for me.

### #28 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 12:08 PM

Well if you don't find contradiction and inconsistency in those things i don't know what contradiction and  inconsistency means to you.

If I stand 10 feet from a lamp, and you stand 20 feet from a lamp, and it is suddenly turned on, we will not see the same thing; I will see the light turn on about 10 nanoseconds before you do.    If we took a picture 15 nanoseconds after that lamp turned on, my picture would show the light and yours would not.  That is an inconsistency in our observations.  To use your language, it would be two "contradictory photographed observations of the same reality at the same time."  It is also easily explainable through the delay caused by the speed of light.  It does not contradict any existing theories on relativity.

### #29 A-wal

A-wal

Creating

• Members
• 1316 posts

Posted 02 November 2016 - 06:40 PM

He's not talking about that. He's talking about the time dilation as observed by object in motion relative to each other.

B ages less than A from A's perspective and A ages less than B from B's perspective. It's still not a contradiction but I can see how it might seem like one if you're not used to thinking in multiple frames.

### #30 sluggo

sluggo

Understanding

• Members
• 269 posts

Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:55 PM

martillo;

1.1A relativity inconsistency

While twins A and B are in relative motion, each can observe the clock rate of the other. Since clocks are frequencies, each is observing doppler shifts of the other clock. While diverging the frequency decreases, while converging the frequency increases. If one uses a light signal to get a reading from the other clock, that clock will appear to be running slow regardless of doppler shift.
Aging concerns the accumulated time on a clock, which requires a comparison at a common location. The underlined are not the same thing.

The graphic is a variation of M (mother-ship), with A and B moving in the same direction with different speed profiles. Their clocks are synchronized at 0.
Which twin has aged the least, when compared at 10?

8.2 MM experiment

If all components have velocity u, and the velocities add as vectors, then light speed is c relative to all components, i.e. the results are the same as if the lab is not moving. The original problem involved the difference in the x-path vs the p-path. With your setup a difference would be detected by an outside observer, with light speed >c on the perpendicular path. That just magnifies the problem. Now tx =2 tp compared to tx = tp in the original setup.

If light acquired the u component in the p direction, then tp = t0 . A light clock would not run slower as a result of motion, i.e. there would be no time dilation and consequently no length contraction, the very thing that resolves the problem.