David wrote:Goldminer wrote:Can you please post your comment at the FQXI site?
Before commenting at the FQXI site, I want to make sure that I fully understand exactly how your theory deviates from Einstein’s second postulate:
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.
I agree completely with your analysis that light remains centered on the emitter; it’s an outstanding observation. However, the essay doesn’t specifically mention the second postulate, pinpoint where it’s wrong, and how your theory differs from it. Would you please elaborate on the distinct differences between your theory and Einstein’s second postulate? Or better yet, rewrite the second postulate so that it agrees with your theory.
The difference I have with the second postulate is that while the
at rest with the source expanding wave front
is centered upon the source, and the second postulate allows for that, I find that a set of "moving observers" also find the expanding wave front to be centered upon the source. This definitely contradicts Einstein, et al.
The second postulate does not rule out the source centered expanding sphere in any inertial reference frame. Albert just states the any incoming light will measure (in vacuo) 299,792,458 metres per second. This places the moving source sphere lost in space, while leaving the
at rest with the source sphere centered upon the source. People should immediately be able to see how illogical this idea is. Some propose that the "moving sphere" is ellipsoidal. That is what I thought early on. It doesn't work either.
After long discussions with my friend Steve Waterman, (
Woldemar, "apples and apples" ) I discovered the problem with the "Galilean Transform," and how to really include the expanding sphere of light in the coordinate system. The key is measuring each ordinate of the coordinate system with the unit speed of light: by using
one foot per nanosecond increments. With the immense speed and distance usually discussed, it is very hard for anyone to concentrate on anything else. This reduces the scale to manageable proportions and allows "time" to be included in three dimensions. Unfortunately, I never could convince him of my discovery.
Anyway, this simple method includes "time" in the three dimensional coordinate system . . . no need for time to be placed on an illogical "fourth axis." All the "fourth dimension" math does is just twist the fourth axis around to whichever third dimension point is getting the attention.
Here is a history of determining the speed of light. As you can read, the speed is determined within the Solar System, or locally with a stationary source. There has never been a direct measurement of the speed of light from a moving source. Everyone assumes two clocks are necessary to do the measurement. This is not so. All that is needed is an electronic high speed counter, and two photo actuated switches, one to start the counter, and one to stop it. They are connected to the counter by equal length cables. The up stream switch starts the counter, the down steam switch stops it. The counter provides the duration the light pulse spends traveling the distance between switches. The setup will measure any incoming pulse of light from whatever source.
The fact that the
at rest with the source light pulse is not Doppler shifted makes this reference system special and unique. The fact that unfocused omni-radiating light radiates from the source at the speed of light in all directions means that the radiation
is spherically centered upon the source. Most physics courses teach this. They are at a loss to explain how this sphere looses its concentric connection with the source in order to comply with Einstein's theory. They never mention the Doppler shift of the incoming light from a source in relative motion with the detector, in the same paragraph with the statement of Einstein's second postulate. Maybe it's too uncomfortable?
The incomplete Voigt "Galilean Transform," placing "time" on a fourth axis, and Einstein's word picture of the diagonal going transverse "photon" seem to be all the evidence needed to convince everyone that this explains the contraction of space and dilation of time, that Poincare, Lorentz, et al theorized. My third diagram, (the longitudinal going reference frame) is just as revealing as the transverse zigzag diagram, I believe.)
David, I hope this helps. I have found that asking questions is the best way to gain attention. Any comment at all gives me something with which to comment. Thanks! I need a straight man sounding board.
Now, there are many thinkers out there with their own theories of why Einstein is wrong. None that I have found have investigated the points that I have related. But there are so many "Johnny come latelys" promulgating theories, that I have little hope of being recognized, or these things in my essay being considered. Everyone of us is just another "crackpot" waving and jumping up and down for attention. Who has time to really understand what I have revealed? I can't blame anyone for just a cursory look and a brush off. I certainly appreciate you David, as well as MJV, Ardwolf, Klypt, Siggy, and all who have posted to the various OP threads etc.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.