[dohtml]
<h1><b>Review of Relativity</b></h1><p>
There was an unforeseen and unpleasant turn in physics at the end of XIX.
century. 1883-'87 experiments - made by Michelson and Moorley -
showed that it was impossible to detect the movement of bodies compared to a
light-beam or to its supposed carrier-medium, the aether. A
furthermore consequence was that no difference exists in the relationship of
light and material bodies whaether the body is standing or moving.
<p>
Until these ominous dates physicists estimated it as evidence, that there was an
aether-sea surrounding the heavenly bodies, and light was moving with a
constant speed compared to this medium. Moving a well-constructed instrument
in this medium the relative speed of light has to change, and the instrument has
to sign this change. When Michelson made this experiment he did not move his
interferometer, but put it down onto a table . As it is known, it is very difficult to
work with a moving optical instrument. However his instrument was considered
as a moving one, because Earth is moving around the Sun. "An aether-wind
must be blowing on surface of Earth!" - this was declared in those years. In spite
of this consideration the instrument did not produce any effect.
<p>
The situation was not reasonable even it was confusing. Twenty years passed
without a really good explanation. Then Einstein came in 1905 with his theory
of relativity. That theory was hardly of physics, but rather of geometry, formal
logic and mathematics. In that situation it would have been quite enough to
suppose, that there is no aether-wind on the surface of Earth, i.e. the Earth and
the aether was moving together. Einstein avoided this solution and declared a
quite new statement: "There is no carrier medium i.e. aether at all!". On the base
of this second step he has built an abstract theory, the theory of relativity of
movement (in short REL).
<p>
In this article first we introduce and shortly analyse the principles (so-called
postulates) of REL. There are more principles, than Einstein listed. We use a
different drafting which shows the missing links, the hidden suppositions and
the inner contradictions in this theory.
<p>
Then we point to the importance of a newly discovered physical entity, the so-
called physical vacuum. The being of this entity is just the refutation of
Einstein's theory.
<p>
After that we introduce our rivalling theory, the Theory of Localised Aether (in
short TLA). In this critical situation, when the deeply believed theory, REL
collapses, it might be reassuring to get a new one immediately. By the way, TLA
is a very simple theory, leading back to the view of physics of the past century.
<p>
Finally we analyse the so-called proofs of REL, showing that most of them are
rather proofs of classical mechanics, others are just refutation of it. Going along
we list further experiments and phenomena not cited by followers of REL, since
they seem to deny it.
<b><p>
PRINCIPLES OF REL
</b>
<blockquote><b><i>
I. postulate: "Physical effects are always the same and independent of
speed. It does not make any difference whether a reference frame is
standing or moving with a constant velocity. The movement is always
relative, and depends on the observer only."
</blockquote></b></i>
<p>
This principle was declared by Galilei first, so Einstein has named it as
"principle of Galilean relativity". Indeed, Galilei made some very rough
mechanical experiments, and at the end he declared, that it could not be found
out in a closed room whether "this reference frame" was standing or moving.
Einstein adopted this unproved idea. Now we know, that at a high speed the
mass of body becomes heavier and its inner clock goes slower. So the principle
of Galilean relativity is not only unproved but false.
<p>
Let's notice that there is a hidden promise in this principle. A promise of
simplicity: big heap of our physical laws and equations do not become more
complicated by parameter of speed. This promise may have been the reason,
why Einstein believed it without any supervision and, why science at last
accepted Einstein's theory based on this false principle. But after all we cannot
avoid the use of speed, either looking at Einstein's complicated equations, or
watching experiments near light-speed.
<blockquote><b><i>
II. postulate: "The cosmos is quite empty. The so-called aether does not
exist."
</blockquote></b></i>
Einstein frequently said something like above, but he never postulated it. But he
should have done so! In the first place because the aether was one of the most
important element of science until 1905. In the second place because this was a
very important road-junction; the world is quite different if there exists a
material-like medium among the bodies or not.
<p>
We have to admit there was no other way for Einstein. He had to deny the
possibility of any medium, otherwise he had to relate the speed of bodies to
this entity. Bit doing so <b> postulate I. </b> collapses immediately.
<p>
The medium problem is a first class question in physics and also in Einstein's
theory. The rules of addition speed vectors are less important. So the name of
relativity of movement is delusive: Theory of Empty Space would have been the
proper name.
<blockquote><b><i>
III. postulate: "Speed of light is a speed border. Relative speed of light
and of a body is always the same, independently of the speed of the body.
So it is not possible to demonstrate uniform motion with the aid of light."
</blockquote></b></i>
The first two sentences are known as "the two postulates of the REL". Later
Einstein admitted, that the two are really one, and his intention was only to
emphasise the importance of light-speed.
<p>
The origin of this statement might have been this: There are two heavenly
bodies moving in space, and there is no connection between them. Thus we may
say that one is standing and the other is moving. Or inversely. But a light-beam
may run beside the first body, then beside the second one too, and so it forms a
connection between the two bodies.
<p>
What could Einstein do to stop this connection or, at least to transform it into
formal? He had to say, that the light-speed was the same compared to the second
body, too. Now at this point we have two possibilities; we accept the funny <b> c-v
= c</b> equitation - or we refuse this postulate.
<p>
Einstein has chosen the firs way, of course. His formal "solution" provided the
fulfilment of the I. postulate: "Physical effects are always the same and
independent of speed." (Measuring light-speed at the second body is also
a physical effect.)
<p>
The third sentence is consequence of the first two ones: if the relative speed
between a body and a light-beam is always the same, instruments are
theoretically unable to sign any change in connection of this two elements.
But this statement provides us a good judgement; if an instrument effects any
change, that proves the III. postulate to be false.
<p> <b>
PHYSICAL VACUUM ALIAS AETHER
</b><p>
After this short browse of postulates of REL we analyse the II. postulate i.e. the
question of aether. In the past century physicians estimated the aether as a
fundamental and indispensable entity:
<p><i>
" The vacuum or aether is a superfine, and weightless fluid. This transmits the
diverse affects like gravity, electricity and magnetism, its physical character
define the speed of light. It is an endless sea, the whole cosmos is full of it. This
medium is possibly motionless, so the movement of bodies might relate to it."
</i><p>
All these above were suppositions only, but - mostly in this century - more and
more physical parameters are discovered indirectly, searching the electricity for
example. These parameters are the dielectric constant of vacuum (8,85 exp-12),
the magnetic constant of vacuum (1,25 exp-6), the wave-resistance of
vacuum ( Z=377 ), etc. So the vacuum is not a fiction,
not "the nothing", but a real physical entity.
<p>
In the last decades vacuum was researched directly, and was named as "physical
vacuum", emphasising, that the notion is something else then earlier. It turned out, that it has an inner movement or fluctuation,
the so called ZPF (zero-point-fluctuation or -field). This fluctuation hides
incredible big energy; the excepted value is 10exp111 Js/m3 , which is equal to
10exp94 kg/m3. The equitation of quantum-mechanics also shows something
like vacuum-force, and this force was demonstrated by experiments, for
example, by the Cassimir-effect. Furthermore, today physicians suppose the
vacuum to be full of elementary participles, as photons, gravitons, Higg's
bosons, virtual particles etc.
<p>
All these show, that the vacuum is reality an existing entity. We suggest to return to its original name - given by the early
Greek physicians - the aether. It is true, that the name "vacuum" or "physical
vacuum" hides the same entity, but the name "aether" is less ambiguous and
more proper.
<p>
There is a disturbing question here. If the existence of aether is so obvious, why
does not science admit it? Well, there are many reasons, but the main one is the
existence of REL. It has swept out every material-like medium from space.
Researchers possible have no time and
inducement to knock against Einstein's statements.
<p>
Another reason is that we, human beings estimate the word just as we
"understood" it in our childhood: things we see or touch are surely reality, others
less. The aether is not touchable, so we are rather to dismiss it, thought its
physical parameters show, that it is more important than matter the itself. So the
right sequence of importance of physical entities is the following: aether is the
first, and the so-called matter is possibly the second one. (My another theory, "The Bubble Word" is based on this right sequence of importance.)
<p><b>
TLA , THEORY OF LOCALISED AETHER
<p></b>
Besides REL there are other hypothesis for explaining Michelson's experiment
and other problematic phenomenon. A possible way is to return
to the aether theory. Of course, aether theory does not work in its original form. The
supposition, that a motionless aether-sea is standing among heavenly bodies
gives trivial contradictions, e.g. we should have to observe an
aether-wind while Earth moves to and fro in the space.
<p>
The inner structure of aether must be more compound. It is known, that for
example there are different parts of Earth's oceans by the aspects of temperature,
salt content and currents. So there has to be different parts of the aether-sea too.
What kind of forces does the dissection of aether separate? Maybe the gravity
field, maybe the electromagnetic field, e.t.c.
<p>
Measurement of aether sections might depend on strength of fields, and
boundaries are where the fields are equal. The shape of boundary is possible not
a spherical one, and there are turbulences there. All these mean, that there are not
motionless aether in the cosmos, every small section of the aether are moving.
<p>
Aether moves and turns together with the Earth,
as gravity field and electromagnetic field are moving and
turning together with her. So there is no aether movement or aether-wind on the
surface of Earth! Because of that any experiments, which want to use the aether-wind, are in vain.
<p>
According to the afore-said, TLA stands on two pillars: There are a material like
medium (i.e. the aether) between bodies (1), end this aether moves together with
Heavenly bodies (2). The first pillar is a fact nowadays, the second one is merely
a supposition. But this supposition enables us to explain all phenomena in
relationship with REL. Furthermore, this theory is so simple, that, in most case
there is no need of explanation of its aspect.
<p><b>
EXPERIMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH REL
</b><b><p>
1.) EXPERIMENT OF MICHELSON AND MORLEY
</b>
<ul>
The interferometer used in this experiment is appropriate to demonstrate motion,
if the instrument is moved. It was not moved but was laid onto a table, and was
turned. And indeed, it did not show any affect. There is nothing wrong with the
instrument or its ability to signal movement. Only the extraordinary hypothesis,
that aether-wind must blow on the Earth's surface, is wrong.
<p>
Why was this experiment settled incorrectly, i.e. to get the instrument lay? Due
to vibration it is very hard to work with an optical instrument while it is moved
at a considerable velocity. Nowadays correct experiment can be made rather
easily, for example, on board of a satellite.
</ul>
<b><p>
2.) ASYMMETRY OF BACKGROUND RADIATION OF COSMOS
</b>
<ul>
Pensias and Wilson discovered the so-called 2,7K temperature background
radiation of cosmos, but later they invoked its asymmetry, too. The
characteristic of asymmetry can be perfectly explained merely by movement of
Earth in cosmos. Electromagnetic waves are compound in the front side, their
energy increase, the backside the effect is just the opposite.
<p>
Rate of asymmetry corresponds to the speed of Solar-system moving around the
centre of Galaxy. Thus this phenomenon points out the uniform motion of Earth
and, at the same time denies the III. postulate of REL.
</ul>
<b><p>
3.) DOPPLER-EFFECT OF LIGHT
</b>
<ul>
The frequency of emitted light is constant. Observing a moving light-source the
colour of light changes i.e. the frequency of light seems to be modified. The only
reasonable explanation for that is to suppose, that the relative speed has changed
somewhere in the source - light - space - observer system. Relative speed of
them becomes lower or higher than the speed of light. This simple and well-
known phenomenon denies the III. postulate unambiguously.
</ul>
<b><p>
4.) ASTRONOMY LIGHT-ABERRATION
</b>
<ul>
We do not see stars at their original place - because of motion of Earth.
Direction of aberrant light-beam is the resultant of speed-vector of light and
speed-vector of Earth. Their ratio is 30:300000, so - in case of rectangle
position - aberration angle is 20,6". The value of this angle is significant in
astronomy, and its direction depends on the seasons, i.e. on the actual direction
of Earth's motion.
<p>
To avoid misunderstandings we have to put some notices here. First, in aspect of
this phenomenon of Earth's motion it is a uniform motion. Supposing we put the
telescope onto the board of a satellite, and move straight ahead with the same
speed, so that the effect of aberration should remain constantly the same. If we
stop the satellite, the aberration becomes zero. If we move the satellite to the
opposite direction, the direction of light-aberration becomes opposite, too.
<p>
The direction of motion of Earth changes continually, because Earth moves on
ecliptic orbit, therefore the direction of light-aberration changes continually.
This change helped astronomers very much to discover this phenomenon. There
must be a similar phenomenon which is caused by movement of Solar-system in
the Galaxy. It is ten times bigger, though not discovered yet because of the tiny
change of direction.
<p>
Furthermore phenomenon of light aberration does not depend on distance of
stars, and it is impossible to create a versus model, where the Earth is standing
and stars are moving. On the basis of REL there should be such an alternative
model.
<p>
As consequence of this phenomenon there exists an instrument (i.e. an
astronomical telescope), which can continually show the value and direction of
speed of Earth. This instrument denies postulate III, as it points out the uniform
motion.
</ul>
<b><p>
5.) FIZEAU'S EXPERIMENT
</b>
<ul>
French physician Fizeau made an experiment in 1851, where a light-beam was
running in a moving water pillar. He pointed out the movement of water
interferometrically. As it was said after this experiment, the moving water partly
carried light with itself. But we have to notice, that the direction of movements
was parallel here. If they are perpendicular, no effect can be expected.
<p>
The phenomenon of spreading light in water may be more complicated than it
seems at first. Primary and secondary waves, extinguishes, etc. are mentioned in
the explanations. Both REL, and classic physics can explain this experience.
</ul>
<b><p>
6.) AIRY'S EXPERIMENT
</b>
<ul>
English astronomer Airy in 1871 filled his telescope with water. His expectation
was to get some change in the effect of astronomical aberration, since water
carried light-beam in Fizeau's experiment. But he did not get any effect.
<p>
At the aspect of REL this means the same contradiction like astronomical
aberration does. From the aspect of TLA it can be explained if we put a
supposition that Fizeau's effect does not work in cross-direction if speed is low.
No statement in physic against this supposition.
</ul>
<b><p>
7.) SAGNAC'S EXPERIMENT
</b>
<ul>
French physician Sagnac made his famous experiment in 1913. His instrument
was a turning disk with mirrors around the edge of it. Two light-beams were
running along the edge of disk (by aid of mirrors) in opposite direction. While
lights made one tournament, the input point moved a little bit away. So the way
of one light-beam became longer, other's becomes shorter. Light interferentia
strips showed the difference.
<p>
This instrument is a closed reference frame, which however shows motion,
namely turning motion - although REL says, that the instrument has not any
connection with its environment. This contradiction means, that postulate II of
REL is wrong, the space is not empty.
<p>
At this point we will show, that there is not any essential difference between
uniform and turning motion. Let's take the turning motion first. Light moves at
the edge of turning disk with constant speed according to the table, and mirrors
move to the same direction. Leaving one mirror and moving to the next the way
of light seems longer, because this mirror moves off. This effect is repeated
around the whole circle, because the relationship of speeds are always the same
around the edge. So part-effects are summarised.
<p>
In case of straight motion we can chose also a distance of light-way, where
relationship is just like above, thus an effect appears too. But there is always an
opposite part of the instrument, where appears an inverse effect, because the
direction of speed of light and that of the mirror become opposite. Therefore the
statement that there is no effect in this instrument is untrue, but the one, that
there is no effect at the output because of annihilation of opposite effects is
really true.
<p>
As an addition, we have to say, that the original aim of this optical arrangement
was not the indication of turning motion. So it was just a fortune to effect it. By
the way, it is possible to design other arrangements as well, which are able to
indicate all the two kinds of motion, and to make others, which indicate none of
them. For example Michelin's interferometer is able to indicate uniform motion
only, and unable to indicate turning motion.
<p>
In connection with Sagnac's experiment Einstein declared, that the uniform
motion and turning motion were quite different. He created two different
theories, i.e. rather two different physics. As showed above, the construction or
the optical arrangement is the only difference, and that is not enough to
emphasise one kind of the motions, namely the uniform motion.
</ul>
<b><p>
8.) LIGHT ABERRATION AROUND THE SUN
</b>
<ul>
This phenomenon was pointed out by Eddington in 1919, and it is known as an
important proof of REL. It was foreseen by Newton and Einstein too, but
Einstein's prediction was twice bigger and this one proved good.
<p>
Calculating the light aberration Newton possibly applied the law that speed of
light is limited, i.e. light does not quicken in direction of forehead. So he got a
result, which was twice bigger then the one of classical mechanical equations.
But this result was about twice smaller, then the result of observations.
<p>
This fact supports the REL. But let us take care that light is quite different entity
like the the so called matter. Light has double spin, for example, speed barrier,
and shoves the Bell-kind none equations, etc. So it would be a peculiar case, a
fortune, to get good aberration number using classical mechanical equations.
REL apply also one parameter of light (speed barrier) only, so its good result is
just the case of good fortune too. A remark: there are not exact results, and the
ominous number is not punctual. The smallest difference would deny the
REL.
</ul>
<b><p>
9.) BIRTH OF MATER
</b>
<ul>
If two nucleons, accelerated at the barrier of light-speed are collided, they smash
into fragments. But this fragments are heavier, than the original mass. This
proves, that mass increment is not a seeming one, depending on observer, but it
is a reality. Statement of REL, that relativistic phenomenon are seeming ones, is
mistaken.
</ul>
<b><p>
10.) FORMULA OF MASS INCREMENT
</b>
<ul>
Einstein deduced a mass increment from his equations, and there is a 1/2
exponent in his formula. But his formula is valid for perpendicular case only,
where speed vector and force vector are perpendicular. This is the usual case of
experiments indeed. In the nature the case of parallel direction is more general,
where we want to increase speed. Here the formula of mass increment is similar,
but the exponent is 3/2. There is no explanation for this second formula by the
REL.
<p>
It is necessary to put a remark here. The phenomenon of mass increment is not
the consequence of REL, as it is often said. It is consequence of laws of nature.
Einstein successfully predicted one of the laws, the perpendicular one, but his
theory was too simple compared to nature, so it was beyond his power to predict
the other mass increment, the parallel one.
</ul>
<b><p>
11.) ROSETTE TRACK OF MERCURY
</b>
<ul>
Perihelia point of Mercury's track turns in the cosmos with the value of
0.4"/year. The effect of mass increment gives the correct explanation, if the
exponent of the formula is 3/2. So this phenomenon is not the proof of REL, but
its refutation.
</ul>
<b><p>
12.) EXPLANATION OF INERTIA
</b>
<ul>
Mass and inertia are taken by physics as fundamental idea, what exists, but there
are not deeper parameters to explain them. Now Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff
show [2], that inertia is a Lorentz forth, an electromagnetic resistance. So mass
has to be taken as charged participles in connection with the ZPF (zero-point-
field), i.e. with aether. In aspect of case 10, now it is easy to believe that
perpendicular inertia differs from parallel one, since we know that
electromagnetism depends on direction of motion.
<p>
Einstein's vacuum is the emptiness, but the vacuum of this theory is a physical
field, heap of real particles and electrodynamics connections. The two theory
use opposite conditions, so one of the two has to be wrong.
</ul>
<b><p>
13.) ATOMIC CLOCK EXPERIMENT
</b>
<ul>
After constructing sharp atomic clocks a so-called "time slow down" experiment
was settled. A clock was put on the board of an aeroplane and carried with
considerable speed. Arriving back the clock was slow. This effect is not a fictive
one, depending on the observer, as Einstein declared. It is a real effect, a
remaining one.
</ul>
<p><b>
14.) INNER CLOCK OF MU-MESONS
<p></b>
<ul>
Mu-mesons are born at 30 - 60 km high in atmosphere of Earth, and their
general life-time allows them to run about 600 m, supposing light-speed. But
they mostly arrive at the surface, and the simplest explanation is, that "their
inner clock" slowed down.
<p>
This effect is also not a fictive one, which depends on the observer, as Einstein
claimed. It is a real effect, a remaining one.
</ul>
<b><p>
15.) THE TIME-SLOW-DOWN
</b>
<ul>
Einstein often use the expression "time-slow-down", but in his interpretation
this is merely an illusory effect as a result of the relative movement of reference
frames. But having stopped movement the result of effects remains, as case 4, 9,
11, 13 and 14 shows. Thus we can state, that Einstein's interpretation is false.
<p>
In aspect of TLA we may say, that effect of case 13 and 14 is expectable.
Moving in a physical medium i.e. in the aether with nearly light-seed, there
must be some modification in the inner structure of particles, atoms and bodies.
</ul>
<b><p>
16.) SEEMING OR REAL PHENOMENON ?
</b>
<ul>
Einstein's sentences are always in predicative mode: " The rod becomes shorter,
the mass increases, the time slows down, etc.". Though he declares somewhere
that changes are only seeming ones, but the permanently used predicative mode
of his sentences makes us think, that there is no deep contradiction between his
statements and the results of experiments or phenomenon, like above. But there
is! The results of experiments and the statement of REL are quite antagonistic.
</ul>
<b><p>
17.) QUANTUM PHYSICS VERSUS RELATIVITY
</b>
<ul>
REL uses such parameters like exact place-co-ordinates, effects spreading with
limited speed, and the idea of time. But in quantum physics there are not such
parameters.
<p>
In the past years it has turned out, that laws of quantum physics are always true,
and it is right against any opposite theories. Looking at the parameters used by
REL, we have to say, that they are opposite ones, so the quantum physics denies
REL. (Sorry to say, but TLA and many other theories of physics are the same.)
</ul>
<p><b>
WHY DOES REL LIVES STILL?
<p></b>
Now we have listed many heavy arguments against REL above. Nowadays one
would be enough to refuse such a complicated, non-physical theory. Why has
been Einstein's extraordinary theory accepted, and why is it not refused now in
the possession of great pile of contradictions? These are very important
questions, which may get anyone confused. We try to give some answers.
<p>
To accept the hypothesis of empty world at the beginning of XX century is the
first question. An association may explain that ominous acceptation: The
emptiness of bag of science, compared to the knowledge of science of
nowadays. Now space and the bag of science is not empty at all, but they are full
of newly discovered bodies, radiations, particles, rules of their connections, etc.
Now, no one would dare create a theory based on emptiness, including Einstein,
of course.
<p>
The second heavy problem of nowadays is to declare that the theory of relativity
is false. The reason is possibly the strong and hidden inertia of human mind.
First we do not want to accept new observations and laws, latter we reject to get
rid off old ones, even if they had been obviously proved to be false. The whole
history of science sets examples of this two kinds of effect.
<p>
Now it is high time to reject the theory of relativity of movement. Maybe the
acceptation of this "new" theory of mind-inertia might help us to do so.
<p>
<p><center>
Feb 1995
<font color="grey"> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . </font>Thomas-t
<p> .<p>
</center>
[1] Laszlo Gazdag: Super fluid mediums, vacuum spaces, Speculations in
Science and Technology, Vol.12, No.1, 1989 <br>
[2] Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff: Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force, Physical
Review A, Vol.49, No.2, Feb. 1994
<p>[/dohtml]
Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am