Theories of the Aether Articles relating to the Emergence of | |
---|---|
"Thus he then classified living creatures into genera and species, | |
A New Approach | |
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia - Southern Winter 1997 | |
A New Approach to the Lorentz Transformations |
---|
Arlin J. Brown
P.O. Box 251
Fort Belvoir Virginia 22060 USA
In his Special (Restricted) Theory of Relativity of 1905, Albert Einstein proposed two postulates which can be considered to be the result of the seeming inability to detect the reference frame in which travels. [A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 891 (1905). For an English translation, see A. Einstein et al., "The Principle of Relativity," Dover Publications, New York, (1958)] They are re-phrased somewhat differently here for special emphasis: 1) "As long as the reference frame in which light travels is not detected, the laws of physics can be considered to be the same in every inertial frame, thus making all such frames equivalent." 2a) "In order to be consistent with any non-detection of the light frame, the one-way speed of light would have to be measured in all inertial coordinate systems to be equal to to the same constant, c , as the average round trip speed of light. To insure this result, we must use the Einsteinian-Lorenzian method of synchronizing clocks in a relative manner. I.e., the time which is set on a "distant" clock is arrived at by assigning a value of c (whether it really is or not) as the unmeasured speed of light traveling from one clock to another and assuming that the second clock should indicate the time when the light signal left the first clock plus the time increment, delta t= d/c , where d is the distance between the clocks. Clocks which are coordinated in this manner are said to be operating on a local, non-absolute system of relative time which varies from frame to frame." 2b) "Since the speed of light is always measured to be equal to c, it must be independent of the motion of the source." [This source independence of light speed is consistent with experiment and with ether theory, thus excluding Newton's ballistic (source-dependent) theory of light and any other proposal to explain light propagation.] It can be shown that the "reverse" one-way speed of light (i.e.,measured in the direction opposite to the direction of the Einsteinian light signal used to set the second clock) can be equal to c only if length contraction and time dilation really occur in an absolute sense in the observer's frame. Since no one knew how to set separated clocks (because the one-way speed of light was unknown) so that the absolute light frame could be detected, Einstein decided to advocate his particular type of time, which, unlike real time, requires the re-setting of clocks every time the observer changes from one frame to another, which for an observer on the earth would be constantly. The only possible reason why clocks would require re-setting on changing frames is that the real unmeasured speed of light changes. Thus two frames in relative motion which are totally equivalent in every other way will have clock systems which are different.(i.e., the Lorentzian time-phase factors are always different and the clock rates are almost always different), resulting in the observers measuring different values, respectively, for a given length or mass of nearly all objects and different rates for nearly all clocks, regardless of the state of motion of whatever is being measured. An observer in a state of absolute motion will measure the one-way speed of light to be isotropically equal to c only when using Einsteinian time. When at absolute rest, it makes no difference how separated clocks are set because the real one-way speed of light, c , becomes identical to the Einsteinian one-light speed, c , and the relativity theory and our Light Frame (ether) Theory will then yield completely identical results. Although the speed of light originating from a moving origin and observed to be traveling along the y' axis perpendicularly to the absolute ditection of an observer moving at an absolute speed, v , turns out to be equal to c/g in absolute units, where the relativistic scaling factor, g , or gamma, is equal to 1 / (1 - v v / cc)^1/2 ,the moving observer will still measure its speed perpendicularly to the x' axis to be equal to c , since his clocks all run at the slower absolute rate of t/g , where t is absolute time, according to our Light Frame Theory. The real perpendicular velocity component of any light signal will also still be equal to c , regardless of the value of the x' component and the method used to synchronize clocks. Since no measuring rod contraction occurs perpendiculatly to the (x') direction of absolute motion, all observers, whether at absolute rest or moving parallel to the x' axis, will measure any prpendicular distance, e.g., y , y' , or s, to have the same real value. (Ignoring any absolute direction of different frames, the frame invariant, s , occurring in the expression, ss=cctt-xx-yy-zz , can be a real or illusory measured perpendicular physical distance when the axes are oriented so that at least one spatial dimension can be dropped, therby eliminating the need for imaginary numbers and space-time. It is often acknowledged by the proponents of relativity that lengths and clocks must somehow really be different in different inertial frames, in order to account for the fact that different observers measure the same constant, c , for the round trip light speed, but they never follow through on this assumption and show in quantitative terms that they are indeed correct. Their assumptions become even more reasonable when we realize that many different inertial observers will measure different values, respectively, for the length of our own measuring rods, the rate (tempo) of our clocks, and the values of masses at rest in our frame. Also, the only way that an observer in constant uniform motion can measure the (unreflected) one-way speed of light as he approaches a light source to be the same as when he recedes from the source is for his clocks to be out of true synchronization by virtue of having been set by Einstein's clock setting convention. This will artificially reduce the measured light speed when approaching the source and increase the measured value when receding, both by just the right amount. If Einsteinian time must be used to insure that the measured reverse one-way speed of light is equal to c , then one may wonder why the measured real average round trip speed of light is also equal to c in different inertial frames, where only one clock is used in a given frame to make the measurement. The reason is that such measurements involve the average value of generally different light speeds, normally involving a real speed greater than c in one direction and less than c in the opposite direction, thereby giving us a true determination of reality relative to the observer, which has nothing to do with relative time, relative clock synchronization, relative simultaneity, the equivalence of frames, or even the Lorentz transformations, which deal with only one-way light speed measurements. Even though the real one-way speed of light may be higher in the same direction in another frame, it will be lower in the opposite ditection by just the right amount to retain an average round trip speed of c. [ A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] Moreover, when clocks have been set by Einstein's method, an ad hoc clock-rate measurement method must be imposed (which is unnecessary when clocks are in true synchronization) which requires the use of two clocks in one's own frame and one clock in the other frame, when measuring the rate of a moving clock. Thus relativity prohibits an observer from using one of his clocks to compare the time rate of a succession of moving clocks in another frame as they move by. This reverse procedure, however, does tell how the other observer would compare clock rates between the two frames when following the synchronization convention of relativity. When using relative local time, since the measured one-way speed of light must, in general, differ from what one would measure if clocks were in true synchronization, likewise all other measured velocities would also have to differ when using Einsteinian-set clocks. Thus, e.g., what either frame measures for the speed of the other frame would normally be different if each were to use truly synchronized clocks. It should be mentioned that, except for a small untested anomally which would be measured only by observers in absolute motion, [ A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] there is no conflict between the different, but compatible, sets of equations derived according to these different definitions of time. In fact, several other definitions of time could be used, such as absolute time and also the time which results when clocks in one frame are coordinated so that they are out of true synchronization to the same degree as those in another frame. The latter could be done in different ways, e.g., after setting their clocks to relative time, the clocks in both frames could be changed by identical amounts until both observers make mutually reciprocal and non-paradoxical measurements, rather than the Einsteinian "A>B>A" or "B>A>B" type of measurements for a given quantity, although there is an even chance that they will be qualitatively wrong. But only with truly synchronized clocks will an observer find the real comparative values for all measurements relative to him, and all such inertial observers will then agree on either an A>B or B>A reciprocal relationship for a given quantity measured between frames. Moreover, measurements made from two different frames, of quantities involving a third frame, would also be logical, rather than paradoxical. If the degree to which relativistic effects occur is a function of one's absolute velocity, then different frames are generally not totally equivalent and some laws of physics would be slightly different, e.g., the anisotropy of the real one-way speed of light would violate Einstein's FIRST postulate. Indeed the results of different types of recent experiments indicate that the real one-way speed of light generally is not equal to c. [D.J. Torr and P. Kolen, "An Experiment to Measure the Relative Variations in the One-Way Velocity of Light, U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984. E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986). E.W, Silvertooth, "Experimental Detection of Anisotropy in the wavelength of Light," to be published. E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22, 1274 (1983).] This does not violate the second postulate because, as far as one-way light speed is concerned, this postulate applies only to measurements made when assuming that the speed of light in one direction is already equal to c. Even though Einstein simply ignored the ether as superfluous (redundant, extraneous and unnecessary - [but compatible]), we can start with the ether concept as a single master postulate and, when using his definition of local time, we can derive the Lorentz transformations as well as the relativity postulates (by temporarily ignoring absolutes) which would then follow from the Lorentz transformations. If one's measuring rods really contract and clocks really run slower, both by a factor of g [gamma], for an absolutely moving observer, then ALL measured velocities parallel to the absolute direction of motion would be equal to v'=gg(v-vsubB), where vsubB is the absolute velocity of moving observer B and v is any other parallel velocity or component measured by absolute observer A. However, when v and vsubB do not appear in the same equation, v will normally represent vsubB, such as in the corresponding expression for one-way light measurements, c'=gg(c-v) . From this equation, it can easily be shown that the round trip speed of light in any direction must be equal to c for all observers in absolute motion. [A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] Our ether theory is compatible not just with the Michelson-Morley experiment [A.A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci., 122, 120 (1881); A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, Am. J. Sci., 34, 333 (1887); Phil. Mag., 24, 449 (1887).] and its required absolute length contraction, but with the Kennedy-Thorndike expriment as well, where it was shown that absolute time dilation must also occur [when the arms of the interferometer are of unequal lengths] if the ether is to exist. [R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, Phys. Rev., 42, 400 (1932).] It is not unreasonable for an absolute contraction to occur. E.g., if the etheric waves composing a subatomic particle were to exist in a pattern of waves traveling in a closed loop when the particle is at rest in the ether and if the absolute amplitude of the perpendicular component of each wave remains the same when the particle is moving linearly through the ether, then we should be able to predict the new dimension of the particle, or wave path, in the parallel direction by taking the ratio of the absolute round trip speed of the wave in the parallel direction to the absolute speed of the wave in the perpendicular direction, since the distance covered by the component of the wave in each direction must be such that the period of time required for a round trip in each respective direction is the same. Otherwise each individual part of each wave would have to be in more than one place at the same time. Since the absolute round trip speed of electromagnetic waves relative to a moving frame as seen by an absolute observer is c/g in the perpendicular direction and c / gg in the parallel direction, the ratio of the two speeds is c/g / c/gg=g and the ratio of the time periods of each component covering a given distance is 1/g. Thus in order for the time periods to be equal, the parallel path distance must be reduced to 1/g of the perpendicular path distance, causing a contraction which leaves 1/g of the parallel dimension of all particles, and consequently of all atoms by virtue of cohesive forces and finally all larger objects, being held together cohesively. When traveling at virtually the speed of light, the atoms and subatomic particles would be virtually flat, since the etheric waves, traveling at the speed of light, would be unable to make more than infinitesimal parallel progress beyond the center of mass of any particle, because the particle itself would be traveling at a speed of virtually c. Efforts to measure the Lorentz contraction may fail unless one realizes that the contraction is caused by physical forces -- which can be opposed by other forces -- and is not necessarily the automatic magical result of an equation. E.g., when using a rotating disc to measure any decrease in the separation of high speed atoms, one must realize that atoms located at the same radius from the center of the disc cannot come closer together without pulling other atoms farther apart, even if the subatomic particles contract. Thus the disc must not be continuously solid. It could, however, somewhat resemble a spoked wheel with the hub comprising most of the wheel and having a discontinuous outer perimeter, with each outside section connected to its own short "spoke," thereby allowing contraction to occur. Moreover mass must increase with absolute velocity because of the ether barrier. Since a physical particle (or object) can not exceed the speed of the etheric waves which compose it, when it is traveling at nearly the speed of light w.r.t. the ether, an amount of kinetic energy which attempts to impart an additional velocity to it is transformed mostly into mass and kinetic energy of the particle, but virtually no more velocity. The only important difference in Hendrik Lorentz' and Einstein's theories is the fact that Einstein ignored the very physical conditions (the ether and its consequences) which mandated the transformations, while Lorentz relied on the ether concept and just one postulate -- the apparent inability to detect the motion of objects w.r.t. the ether (which Einstein split into two postulates). While Lorentz (and Einstein, for that matter) never found the causative missing link -- the consequences of the wave nature of sub-atomic particles in the ether -- which could have physically explained length contraction etc., Einstein's theory was more deficient in that it totally ignored all possible explanations of relativistic effects and the relativity postulates, thereby unnecessarily relegating relativity to a black box theoty of measurements. The reason why relativity has been so hard to truly understand is that no physical explanation or hypothesis was ever offered which is compatible with Einstein's statement that the ether is not needed. An aspect of physical reality which is not directly observable (even if deductive logic demands it) does not necessarily cease to exist simply by our ignoring it. There must be an understandable physical reality which makes Einstein's postulates appear to be true when absolutes are ignored, but Einstein chose to leave these mandatory mechanisms and the causes underlying relativity to others to discover. To say that absolutely synchronized time does not exist is equivalent to declaring that it is physically impossible for working clocks in different locations in the same frame to read the same time. This hypothesis has not only never been proven, but no physical explanation has ever been offered which might explain why it is permissible for one clock to be ahead or behind another clock but can never read the same time even by accident or by gradually changing the reading on one clock to cover all possible values corresponding to every real one-way light speed which could have been used to set the separated clocks. These light speed values would have to be higher than a real relative speed of c/2 in one direction but could approach infinity in the opposite direction (as the observer approaches the speed of light), in keeping with the requirement that the average speed of light in free space is equal to the constant, c . If thre is any problem in truly synchronizing clocks, it is a practical problem (which may have already been solved), not a profound philosophical or metaphysical problem. The past difficulty with absolutely synchronized time has never been that it can not exist, but in not knowing when one has it. If clocks in different places are not permitted by relativity to read the same real time, then how close are their readings allowed to become? Can they be infinitesimally close for an observer so that they cannot be distinguished from absolute synchronization? Moreover, which Einsteinian-set clock would be ahead of the other and by how much and why? The slow clock-transport method is a perfectly valid procedure to set separated clocks, when properly used. However, the method is often misinterpreted as requiring the measurement of the velocity of the moving clock during transport in order to take time dilation into account. But this interpretation is invalid because it turns out to be equivalent to Einstein's relative method of clock setting. It can be shown that if a clock can be moved slowly enough and no correction is made for time dilation, the discrepancy between the original clock reading and the transported-clock reading can be made so infinitesimal that, for all intents and purposes, the clocks can be considered as absolutely synchronized. According to relativity, two separated clocks in one reference frame will differ in synchronization from two clocks similarly oriented and the same local distance apart in a different inertial reference frame, when synchronized by Einstein's method. The result of Einstein's procedure is the anti-reciprocal A>B>A or B>A>B type of paradox for mutual length, mass and clock rate measurements. The difference in readings of a pair of clocks in one frame will be either greater or less than the difference, if any, in the other frame. We must now ask 1) WHICH frame has the greater difference in clock readings, 2) what is the exact degree of the difference, and 3) why? Since relativity ignores the ether, it has no answers. But Einstein's equations ironically describe the ether and demand the non-equivalence of different reference frames, thereby making the theory internally inconsistent, notwithstanding his efforts to force the unmeasured one-way sped of light to be equal to c. Einstein's clock setting method is what forces inherently different frames superficially to appear to be equivalent, but when a pair of clocks changes frames and are not re-set, a light signal from one clock to the other will generally arrive either sooner or later. This means that the physical situation in one frame is not the same as the physical situation in another frame as far as similarly oriented light signals are concerned. Only the ether concept enables us to understand why there is a difference and why the frames are generally not equivalent in every way. Although a one-way light signal must arrive late if we accelerate (in the same direction as the light is moving) to a new inertial frame, relativity can not predict how late the signal will arrive or how early (in case we accelerate in the opposite direction). Only our ether (light frame) theory can give us a quantitative answer. 1997 note: There will be some difficulty in reproducing some of the following equations for the internet because in the original printed article, boldface was used to denote illusory quantities and many subscripts were used. I will now use upper case letters to denote illusory quantities and if the original notation indicated t'sub(x'=0), I will change it to read t'@x'=0. (Of course I did not use the word "sub" in the original paper. I used the actual subscript.) When writing the original paper in long hand, I simply drew a circle around an illusory quantity so it would't be confused with the corresponding real quantity. - AJBDERIVATIONS.
The Lorentz transformations, which are designed to give the relationships between measurements made by different observers in uniform relative motion, were first discovered by Woldemar Voigt in 1887 in an investigation founded on the elastic theory of light, but are generally attributed to Lorentz, [H.A. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sci. (Amsterdam), 6, 809 (1904).], who independently had them published in 1904 after Joseph Larmor [J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, (Cambridge University Press, 1900).] in 1900. Henri Poincare arrived at similar results in 1905. Lorentz was well aware that for absolutely moving observers, his tranformations (with their local time) generally did not give the real physical values for measurements of moving bodies, but were considered by him as mathematical aids to calculation. E.g., it can be shown that while such measured values of velocity and measurements of masses in motion are not normally real, their product will give real momentum. [A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] Similarly, the product of an Einsteinian illusory velocity and an Einsteinian illusory time interval gives a real stationary distance in the observer's frame. The measurements predicted by special relativity can best be understood when one coordinate system is at rest in the ether, which creates real relativistic effects in the moving system, with no real relativistic effects occurring in the stationary frame. When this approach is taken, we can not only calculate what each observer will measure, but the reasons for obtaining each particular value of whatever is measured is completely understood by also calculating real lengths of measuring rods and real clock rates,etc. When this is done, relativity ceases to be magical and becomes understandable. The Lorentz transformations are based on a diagram depicting the relative motion of two different reference frames, A and B, where light signals are emitted in all directions from their origins when the origins coincide at time t=t'=0. Measurements made from the stationary frame,A, are indicated by unprimed symbols and measurements made by Frame B, moving to the right, are indicated by primed symbols. If we want both observers to measure c for the unknown [one-way] speed of light, we must write x=ct and x'=ct' and set the clocks by assuming that c'=c. Thus c=x/t=x'/t' , or t'=x't/x , i.e., at the same instant in absolutely synchronized time, the value of the time in one frame would normally be different from the time value in the other frame. This means that the equations x'=x-vt and x=x'-v't' from classical physics will not balance, except when t=t'=0. In other words, the absolute distance from either origin to the position of the light signal will be measured by A to be different from the same absolute distance as measured by B. In relativity the ratio of the distance measured by an observer from his own origin extending to the position of such a light signal to the same "absolute" distance as measured by the other observer is defined as g, gamma, where g=x'/(x-vt)=x/(x'-v't'), when clocks in different locations are set by light signals of unknown velocity. Rewriting the above will give us the Lorentz distance transformations in their conventional form: x'=g(x-vt) (1) and x=g(x'-v't') (2) Thus light will cover a different distance in different frames during the same "absolute" time interval, since x' is not equal to x (except at t=t'=0). In order to obtain the Lorentz time transformations, we divide these equations by c: x'/c=g(x/c -vt/c) , t'=g(t -vx/cc) (3) and x/c=g(x'/c -v't'/c) , t=g(t' -v'x'/cc) (4) Thus we have forced the one-way measured speed of light in each frame to be equal to c, whether it would be or not if all clocks were truly synchronized. We will show later that v=-v', but for now we will simply assume it to be true, as Einstein did. Since the time throughout the the B frame wil be found to vary with the value of x', at any given time, t', at B's origin, we will distinguish from t' by circling it in longhand, (t') , which we might call "t' circle," or by putting it in boldface type or underlining it when typing or printing. [1997 note: I'll use caps for these postings - in my paper I used boldface] Since this unconventional Einsteinian, or Lorentzian, time is generally not the true time in the B frame, we will call it "illusory" time and let the time, t' , at the origin be called "real" time. When necessary to avoid confusion when talking about illusory time, we must specify the location of the clock on the x' axis (or the x' component of its position). Thus we would write T'@x'/c [T'subx'/c] or perhaps just T'@x' to indicate the illusory time at the position of a light signal and T'@x=0 to indicate the illusory time of the B clock located at the A origin. The time, t'@x'=0, on the B clock at the B origin is real (it was truly synchronized with the A clock at the A origin) and can be written as t'. If both frames are in absolute motion, we should use boldface type [caps] for all time values in both frames where the clocks do not lie on the respctive y-z or y'-z' planes. Since Lorentzian time is not the same as true time, it can not always be used in the same way as true time since, unlike true time, it is space-dependent, e.g., the farther the absolutely moving Lorentzian clock is from the y'-z' plane, the more its reading will differ from the clock reading at the B origin. Thus when measuring how long it takes something to travel from one position on the x' axis to another position, we must record the reading on each clock when the object (or light signal) is adjacent to each respective clock. No problem arises when the clocks are truly synchronized, even if the distance between two moving objects and/or light signals is to be measured, but when Lorentzian clocks are used, the method used in attempting to determine the "simultaneous" location and corresponding time of two moving things is critical, inasmuch as we must use different clock readings at the same real, or "absolute," instant in time corresponding to the different locations of moving points. One error made by Einstein was that he ignored any location-dependence of time within the OBSERVER'S own frame, e.g., at the position of the origin of the other frame. This error is responsible for the predicted disagreement between observers as to the ratio of their clock rates and the ratio of the lengths of each other's measuring rods, etc. When absolute time is used, no problem arises. Even when clocks in different frames are out of synchronization to the same degree, no contradictions arise. But if the actual simultaneous Lorentzian clock readings at the positions of the two points, each in relative motion w.r.t. the moving observer, are not used, tremendous difficulties arise. In fact, except for the unlikely situation where one frame is at rest in he ether, none of the Lorentz transformations will balance in a manner showing REAL relationships when the Lorentzian time is assumed to be the same in different locations in the same frame at the same instant in absolute time. When the actual instantaneous Lorentzian clock reading corresponding to its actual location is used for each moving point, both observers will agree on the true relationship between their respective unit rod lengths (which would be identical when there is no relative motion between the two frames), and the transformations will balance, but with g (a function of the absolute speeds of A and B) inverted in equation (2). However, this involves the determination and application of some kind of meaningful simultaneity. Velocities calculated with illusory time and a real distance (as is normally the case in relativity) are also illusory and will be symbolized, e.g., as V' , when measured from the moving frame. In the Lorentz transformations, the assumed one-way speed of light , c , is almost always illusory in the moving frame and thus is seldom really equal to c in a real life situation unless traveling perpendicularly to the direction of the moving frame and, strictly speaking, should be designated in boldface [caps] as C' (or C in the unprimed frame if that frame is also moving w.r.t. the ether). However, for convenience we will not use boldface type [caps] or the prime symbol when it comes to illusory light speed, since the illusory value of light speed is always set equal to c by Einsteinian convention. In order to derive a convenient formula for g as a function of c and v, or -V' , we will use boldface type [caps] for the illusory time in the B frame and re-write equations (1) and (2) as cT'=g(ct-vt)=gt(c-v) and ct=g(cT'+vT')=gT'(c+v), respectively. Solving each equation for t/T' and equating gives c/[g(c-v)]=g(c+v)/c , gg=cc/(c-v)(c=v) , gg=cc/(cc-vv)=1/(1- vv/cc) , or g=1/ (1 -vv/cc)^1/2 = 1/ (1 -V'V'/cc)^1/2. When A is also in absolute motion and the distance between origins is being compared, the equation becomes v't'=V'T'@x=0 = (-gsubB/gsubA)VT@x'=0 , where gsubB and gsubA pertain to the respective gammas between a given moving frame and the absolute frame. Since, in this case, we will let g=gsubB/gsubA and V'=-V , we have T'@x=0 = gT@x'=0. The time, T@x'=0 , and V are in boldface type [caps] to cover the general case where the unprimed frame may have an absolute velocity. Setting x=0 in equation (3), in the case where both frames are in absolute motion in any direction and when the illusory factor, G , calculated from V or V' is used, we have T'@x=0 = Gt@x=0 , and from equation (4), we have T@x'=0 = Gt'@x'=0 , which qualitatively (not quantitatively) gives the relationship between clock rates. We also have T'@x=0 = Ggt'@x'=0 , since t@x=0 = gt'@x'=0 , where g=gsubB/gsubA is the absolute ratio of real clock rates. Thus the real ratio, g , of the true clock rates of different frames can not be calculated from the Einsteinian illusory velocity between frames. The observers must calculate the true g, which is equal to t / t' . Under Einstein's rules they won't know who is preferred because such rules do not permit the determination of how fast a clock is REALLY running compared with one's own. Only contradictory comparisons are allowed between frames in relativity, generally. When real time is used in both frames, all observers in both frames will find that t=gt' , where g=gsubB/gsubA , regardless of how comparisons are made. Thus frames A and B are never fundamentally equivalent when they have different speeds relative to the ether. When measurements follow the Einsteinian guidelines, it is true that we cannot tell whether A or B is the preferred (slower moving or stationay) frame. But to equate any inability to decide which frame is preferred with the equivalence of the frames is a logical atrocity. It's like saying that both sides of a lost coin are identical if you don't know which side is up. When properly understood, the Lorentz transformations almost always show us that one frame MUST be preferred if they are to balance. After the same interval of absolute time, B will find that what he calculates for the distance between origins can take on an infinite number of values, depending on the reading of the clock located at any one of the infinite number of y'-z' planes that the light signal has reached, depending on which direction it is traveling in three dimensions. If B ignores the light (unless it is located on the y'-z' plane containing A's origin) and concerns himself only with the position of A's origin, he will find the correct value, relative to his frame, for the distance between origins. I.e., the value is V'T'@x=0 , not V'T'@x'/c , where -c't' <= x' <= c't' , which gives an infinite number of distances between origins, at real tme t'@x'=0, ranging from V'T'@x'=0 to V'T'@x'=-c't' and also to V'T'@x'=+c'T'. When the light goes to the right, we have | V'T'@x' | < | VT@x' | and when it goes to he left, we have | V'T'@x' | > | VT@x' | , where | V'T'@(to the right) | / | V"T'@x'(to the left) | = (c-v) / (c+v). When real time is used, no such nonsense is possible. According to the Lorentz transformations, if A at true rest calculates (in his units) the correct distance, vt , between origins, what should B calculate for the same distance between origins for the same moment in absolute time where t=gt' ? If he uses his own units, there is no way that B can measure or calculate the distance between origins to be the same as what A finds at the same instant, and it makes no difference whether A or B is moving slower or is stationary in the ether. This is easier to see if B uses illusory measurements. If the two distances were equal, since v=-V' , the illusory time interval in the B frame would have to be equal to A's time interval, i.e., vt=-V'T'@x=0 and thus t=T'@x=0. Since T'@x=0 = gt, it is clearly imposssible to have T'@x=0 = t unless g=1, which would mean that frames A and B would have to be equivalent, which in turn would violate the special relativity requirement that g=1 / (1 -vv/cc)^1/2 > 1 for frames in relative motion. If the position of A's origin corresponding to time, t , is known to B, then B could also use measuring rods to determine the distance between origins, rather than by using the V'T'@x=0 method. The equation, delta x'=g(delta x), holds for ANY real comparison of lengths or distances parallel to the x and x' axes, even if one end point of the length being measured is traveling in a third frame and the other end point is traveling in a fourth frame -- and if one or both points are light signals. Unreality in physics is like fibbing in life -- you have to remember your indiscretion -- in this case how you made your measurements. When real measuremnts are made, it makes no difference how it is done, and the measurements made from ONE of the frames will almost always be numerically higher (or lower) than measurements made from the other frame for given locations of whatever is being measured and the type of quanity (lengh, mass, time, velocity etc.). E.g., in the case of real rod length measurements, r and r', we would always have r'/r=gsubB / gsubA when the rods are parallel to the direction of absolute motion. It makes no difference if the rod is in Frame A, Frame B or an entirely different Frame C. When Einstein's illusory measurements are used, A and B will disagree on which rod is longer, even if the rod is half way between the A and B origins (unless the rod is at rest in the ether, in which case frames A and B would be equivalent [in this example]). Even though the resl position of a single point can be correctly calculated by the product of the illusory velocity and illusory time, the real x'-component distance between two points BOTH MOVING at the same or at different velocities (parallel w.r.t. a moving observer) cannot in general be correctly calculated with illusory quantities, using Einstein's method. This is why B's illusory calculation of the length of a rod at rest in absolute Frame A is lower than the real relative length by a factor of gg. It makes no difference whether B calculates the illusory length from the illusory velocity and the real time that it takes the rod to pass a point in the B frame, or if he determines the apparent location of each end of the rod at the same apparent illsory time, although the time at one end can be real. From a frame moving w.r.t. the ether, all velocity measurements not parallel to the y'-z' plane become illusory, as well as all time intervals used for measuring change of position. In spite of all this, all measured and calculated distances will be real -- as long as the Lorentzian time corresponding to the actual position of the moving point is always used. In the traditional Lorentz tranformations, the distance measured by Observer B between origins is always incorrect, unless the light at x' is located on the y'-z' (x=0) plane of the observer moving through the ether perpendicularly to that plane or whenever the observer is at rest in the ether, because the Lorentzian time at the position of the light is used, rather than the Lorentzian time at the position of the moving origin. From the equation relating real time in different frames, we can substitute illusory quantities in the following way by writing deltaT=gsubB/gsubA deltaT', where T and T' pertain to all stationary clocks in their respective frames, since the RATE at which ANY stationary clock (real or illusory) in a frame runs is independent of its location. At the origin of the B frame,we have deltaT=gsubB/gsubA delta t'. [Time is real at B's origin.] If t=t'=0 when the origins coincide (say A now is at true rest), we have t/g=t'. Inserting this into Equation (4) gives t'=T'+(vx'x'/cc), which shows the relationship between real time and illusory time anywhere in the moving B frame. We can now convert from either system of time to the other system at will. However, when operating under the limitations of special relativity, there is only a 50% chance of guessing which frame is moving slower w.r.t. the ether or is stationary. If we guess correctly and adjust the clocks in one frame according to the correction factor Vx'/cc or Vx/cc, as the case may be, then the clocks in both frames will be out of synchronization to the same degre, and both observers will agree on the reciprocal relationships and be either quantitatively or merely qualitatively correct, depending on whether one frame is at true rest or not (V is in boldface type [caps] in case A is moving). If we guess incorrectly and pick the wrong frame as the preferred frame, then both observers will still agree on everything but will be incorrect about everything, i.e., whose clocks run faster, etc. In either case, only one observer will find that the faster the other frame moves, the lighter its masses become, etc., and thus the frames would not be equivalent. There is no conflict as such between different systems of time. It is only a matter of convenience combined with a true understanding of what a given system means. We can also set the synchronization of clocks in one frame to agee with the synchronization of clocks in another frame by setting the clocks by Einstein's method in each frame when there is no relative motion between them and then have at least one frame accelerate to a new inertial frame, thereby eliminating all contradictory measurements (although measurements from the new frame(s) will quantitatively vary from relativity). Since x'/T'=c and T' is not equal to t' (except at B's origin), we have x'/ t' is not equal to c. Therefore this equation can be re-written as x'/t'=c' , where c' is not equal to c. Thus x'=c't'=cT' , or t'/T'=c/c' . Even if x'/ t' is not equal to c for a moving frame, we can substitute the variable location-dependent local time, T'=x'/c , or T'=t' c'/c, so that no matter by what factor the actual speed of light differs from c, we can multiply the real time by the same factor, c'/c , so that one can then claim that the unidirectional speed of light is also a universal constant! The effect of Einstein's pseudo-synchronization of clocks in a frame moving to the right is to multiply the real relative light speed by a factor of 1 + v / |c| when it is also traveling to the right and by a factor of 1 - v / |c| when it is traveling to the left. The two expressions for T' can be equated a follows: T'=t' c'/c = t' -vx'/cc = t' -vc't'/cc. Re-writing gives c'/c =1 -vc'/cc, and c'c = cc-vc' , and c'(c+v) = cc, and c' = cc/(c+v). Since cc/(c+v)==gg(c-v), we obtain c'=gg(c-v). [1997 note: This is my favorite equation. AJB.] Thus we see that the true parallel one way light velocity is greater ["different" might be a better word - watch your signs - the earth's velocity will be positive in one direction and negative in the other, if we want to keep c' and c positive] than the predicted classical light velocity by a factor of gg. This is to be expected since delta x'=g delta(x-vt) and delta t'=delta t'/g, so that the general expression for all real parallel balistic velocities measured from the moving frame is u'=delta x'/delta t' = g delta(ut-vt)/(delta t/g) = gg(delta t)(u-v) / delta t = gg(u-v) =u', which is consistent with the non-ballistic equation, c'=gg(c-v). [1997 note: Again, I really LOVE this equation. It's a real sweetheart! It's the formula for the real unidirectional speed of light in any frame moving relatively to the structured properties of space. The RT speed of light, the universal constant, c, is simply the average of the go and return legs of the light path. In general, light speed is greater than c in one direction and less that c in the opposite direction. The degree of the difference depends on how large the value of the component of the light velocity is in the direction of the earth's motion. When that component is zero (earth & light moving at right angles), c'=c. When earth and light move parallel to each other, the difference is the greatest and the absolute veocity of the earth can be determined. AJB] We can also find the difference between true time, t' , and illusory time, T' , without using the time in the stationary frame or the equation, t=gt' , if we use the relationship T'/ t' =c'/c. This gives us t'-T'=t' -t'c'/c = t'(1 -c'/c) = (x'/c')(1 -c'/c) = x' { [ 1/ gg(c-v) ] -1/c}. Since gg==cc/(c-v)(c+v), we have t'-T'=x'[(c+v)/cc - c/cc]. [ Note: == means "identically equal to" ] Thus again t'-T'=vx'/cc, where x' can represent anything, not just light signals. However, when written as t'-T'=v/c T' or t'=T'(1 +v/c), T' must represent the illusory time at the light signal. Although some physicists regard the vx'/cc, or vT'/c , factor as unexpected, [R.P. Feynman. R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, "The Feynman Lectures in physics," (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1963), p. 16-2.] it can be thought of as a kind of counterpart of the term, vt/c, which arises under classical ether conditions where relativistic distances, time intervals and velocities are ignored. Thus if we use Equation (1) in its classical form, x'=x-vt, (since g=1), and have the moving observer B insist that the one-way speed of light is c rather than c-v, i.e., x'=cT', we can divide by c and obtain the equation, x'/c=x/c -vt/c, where x'/c=T' and x/c=t, or T'=t -vt/c = t -vx/cc. The term, vx/cc, is the real time (t=t') that it takes light to cover the distance vt=-v't' , while T' and t are the time intervals that it takes the light to cover the distances x' and x, respectively. Thus the term, vx/cc, arises because the moving observer,B, must take into account the time for the light to cover the distance vt=-v't'. When relativistic effects are considered, the term, vx'/cc, arises for a similar reason, since Equation (2), x=g(x'+vT'), can be written as x/g=x'+vT'. Dividing by c gives x/gc = x'/c +vT'/c, or t/g=t'=T' +vx/cc. The relationship between t' and t can also be found as follows: t'=x'/c' , t'=g(x-vt) / [gg(c-v)], (A at true rest), = (ct-vt) / [g(c-v)] = t(c-v) / [g(c-v)] =t/g, where all quantities are real. The conventional way of attempting to derive this false equation, by setting x=0 in Equation (3), T'=g(t -vx/cc), is mathematically invalid since T' is not equal to t'. Thus it is impossible for the two frames to be equivalent under these conditions, since a clock always runs faster in the stationary (or slower moving) frame. Real quantities can never be contradictory, ambiguous or nebulous and observers in both frames will always agree on the inequalities such as delta t > delta t' , | delta x' | > | delta x | and thus | v' | > | v |, when real parallel measurements are made. The relationship between B's illusory time at A's origin and B's real time can also be found as follows: v't'=V'T'@x=0, T'@x=0 / t' =v'/V' , v'=-(gsubBA)^2 v = T'@x=0 v'/ t' = GgsubBA, T'@x=0 =GgsubBA t' , where the subscript, BA, denotes a measurement of B made by A. Also, since t'= t/gsubBA , we have T'@x=0 = Gt. The equal relationship between V' and -V can be verified from ether theory as follows, rather that merely assuming it to be true on the basis of Einstein's first postulate: V'=Real distance / Illusory time =x'/ T' = v't'/T'@x=0 = -gsub^2(vsubB-vsubA)t'/ (t' -vx'/cc) = -gsubB-vsubA)t' / [t' -vsubB(v't')/cc] = -gsubB^2(vsubB-VsubA) / {1+[vsubBgsubB^2(vsubB-vsubA)/cc]} = -(vsubB-vsubA)/ {(1/gsubB^2) +[vsubB(vsubB-vsubA)/cc]} = (vsubA-vsubB) / {[(c-vsubB)(c+vsubB)/cc]+ [(vsubB^2-vsubAvsubB)/cc]} = (vsubA-vsubB) / {1-[vsubB^2/cc]+ [vsubB^2/cc]-[(vsubA-vsubB)/cc]} = (vsubA-vsubB) / {1-[vsubA^2/cc]-[(vsubA-vsubB)/cc]} = (vsubA-VsubB) / {[(c-vsubA)(c+vsubA)/cc]+ [(vsubA^2-vsubAvsubB)/cc]} = (vsubA-vsubB) / {[1/gsubA^2]+[vsubA(vsubA-vsubB)/cc]} = gsubA^2(vsubA-vsubB) / {1+[vsubA-vsubB)/cc]} = -v / [1-(vsubAv/cc)] = -vt / {t-[vsubA(vt)/cc]} = -vt / [t-(subAx/cc)] = -x/t = -V. [1997 note: I hope I didn't go around Robin's barn here. There's probably a shorter way to do this, but since this worked, I left it alone.] For A at true rest we can start with the equation t'=T' +vx/cc = T' +vV'T'/cc and substitute T'@x=0 for T': t' = T'@x=0 +vV'T'@x=0 /cc = T'@x=0 (1 -vv/cc) = T'@x=0 /gg , and T'@x=0 = ggt' . Since gg==1/ [1 -v/c)(1 +v/c)], we can write t'=x'/c' = cT'/gg(c-v) = T' /gg(1 -v/c) = T'(1 +v/c) and t' = T' +(v/c)T'. Since t'=t/g, we have t/g = T' +(v/c)T', and t=g [T' +(v/c)T'], and ct=g(cT'+vT') and x+g(x'+vT'), which is Equation (2). From this equation we can derive Equation (1) as follows: x=g(x'+vT'), ct=g(cT'+vT') = gT'(c+v) and t = gT'(1 +v/c). Since gg==1 / [(1 -v/c)(1 +v'c)], we can write t=T'/ [g(1 -v/c)]. Thus T'=gt(1 -v/c) = g(t -vt/c) , cT' = g(ct-vt) and x'=g(x-vt). Dividing Equation (3) by Equation (4) in their new form gives us: T'/ t = gt(1 -v/c) / gT'(1 +v/c) , T'T' / tt = (1 -v/c) / (1 +v/c) = (c-v) / c+v), and T'/ t = [(c-v) /(c+v)]^1/2 , an equation from which these four Lorentz transformations can be derived. Since x=ct and x'=cT' , this equation can also be written in real quantities only (for A at rest) as x'/x = [(c-v)(c+v)]^1/2 , which is also a pivotal equation from which these Lorentz transformations can be derived with the help of the identity, [(c-v)(c+v)]^1/2 == g(1 -v/c) == 1 / [g(1 +v/c)] , since gg=cc / [(c-v)(c+v)]. Dividing Equation (1) by x(=ct) also gives us the pivotal equation: x'/x=g(x/x - vt/ct) = g(1 -v/c) = 1 / [g(1 +v/c)] , and (x'/x)^2 = g(1 -v/c) / [g(1 +v/c)] = (c-v) / (c+v), x'/x = [(c-v)(c+v)]^1/2 , or we can simply write x'/x = c't'/ct = (c'/c) / 1/g = gg(c-v) / gc = g(1 -v/c) , x'/x = [(c-v) / (c+v)]^1/2. Also, since V'=-v, we can predict the ratio of the respective measurements of the real distances between origins by writing v't'/vt=V'T'@x=0 / vt = -T'@x=0 / t = -gsubB/gsubA = -gsubBA. Dividing Equation (1) by t gives us x'/ t= g(x/ t - vt/ t) , x'/gt'=g(c-v) , or c'=gg(c-v). The Lorentz transformations can be derived from the real-time ether equations by first deriving Equation (1) by multiplying the equation, c'=gg(c-v) , by t=gt' and then deiving Equations (2), (3) and (4) from Equation (1). For two reference frames in relative motion, it is mathematically impossible to combine successfully equations (1) and (2) when Equation (1) represents A at true rest and Equation (2) represents B at true rest, because when a frame is at true rest, all time, velocity, and distance measurements made in that frame are real, making the equations mathematically contradictory, which, if a solution is forced, mandates that both frames at least be at relative rest (w.r.t. each other), i.e., v=v'=0 or V=-V'=0. An inherent imbalance exists which almost always favors one specific frame over the other, and the equations per se cannot tell us which frame is preferred until we learn to make actual measurements which show what is happening at the same instant in absolute time in each frame. As written, each of the Lorentz distance transformations represents a relative situation where one frame is either at absoloute rest in the light frame or both frames are moving in any direction at the same speed or different speeds through the ether. When the two speeds are different, the imbalance, or non-equivalence, can never be removed. Both equations, (1) and (2), include the distance betwen origins, which is no problem in Equation (1) when everything is real, while in Equation (2), we have seen that the distance between origins, VT'@x' , is permitted by relativity to be measured only by using the Einsteinian time at the position of the light signal if Equation (2) is to be valid -- and thus the distance between origins as measured by A is different from the same absolute distance as measured by B at the same instant in absolute time. However when the direction of the light signal is reversed, the ratio of the respective measurements of the distance between origins, V'T'@x' / VT@x = -T'@x' /T@x = -{[(-)c-v] / [(-)c+v]}^1/2 , is inverted. Thus at the same instant in absolute time, the "moving" observer will find two different incorrect illusory values for the same real distance between origins. If B's clock reading is taken at the position of A's origin, x=0, the distance between origins will be measured to be V'T'@x=0 = -VT'@x=0. If B were to use truly synchronized clocks, we would have v't'=-gsubBA vt, which is somewhat similar to Equation (1). When using the same illusory times to calculate the distance between origins, the observer who measured the real distance between his origin and the light to be smaller will also measure a shorter (illusory) distance between the origins by the same exact ratio as with the light distance calculation. Again, when the process is repeated with the light traveling in the opposite direction, the observer's calculated distance between origins (at the same instant in absolute time as before) will also be changed, i.e., the ratio of the calculated distances will be inverted and the observer who previously found the shorter distance between origins will now find the longer distance, which shows that such calculated distances must, in general, be illusory. Although the distances between origins as determined by the moving observer is generally incorrect regardless of the light direction, averaging the two values would give the correct distance, assuming that they can be found. It is interesting that when A and B each determine the ratio of the same two absolute distances, i.e., (B's origin to the light signal) / (A's origin to the light signal), they will find (x -VT@x)/x = 1 -V/c and x'/ (x' -V'T'@x') = 1 / (1 +V/c), respectively. In other words, when Einstein's illusory quantities are used, A and B will not even agree on the RATIO of the measured distances. The ratio of the ratios is (B's ratio) / (A's ratio) = (1/ 1 +V/c) / (1 -V/c) =GG. Also, when one observer says that two objects w.r.t. ANY frame are traveling at the same speed in opposite directions, the other observer will almost always disagree. When two frames are not equivalent, the real relativistic effects are more pronounced in one frame than the other, which causes the two observers to arrive at different values when measuring the same absolute distance, whether it be the distance between origins, the distance from either origin to the position of a light signal, or the distance between any other two points having different x components and different x' components. E.g., when real time is used, we obtain (x'=v't') / x = g as the ratio of measurements of the same absolute distance made by B and A. When illusory time is used, x and x' remain the same but x'-v't' is reduced by a factor of gg down to x'V'T'@x' , giving a ratio of measurements made by B and A of (x'-V'T'@x') / x = 1/g. Although illusory time can be injected into Equation (1) as x/c, and cT' can also be substituted for x', such time plays no role in the measurement of x', since the point x' is a given point which coincides with the point x and thus is a completely agreed upon absolute position of the light signal. In contrast, the point V'T'@x' is a total fantasy and has nothing to do with even the LORENTZIAN time at A' s origin, let alone the real time. A's origin is correctly determined by B if B's real time, t' ,is used in conjunction with the real velocity, v' , or when the illusory time at A's origin, T'@x=0 , is used with the illusory velocity, V'. When B decides to use illusory time and measures distances with the velocity x time method, it yields real distances except in Equation (2) where the time at x' , which is to be multiplied by V' to give a distance, has nothing to do with the illusory B clock located at A's origin. The ratio of these two different illusory clock readings can be determined as follows: T'@x' / T'@x-0 = (x'/c) / (ggt') = (x'/c) / (ggt') = (x'/ t') / (ggc) = c' /ggc = gg(c-v) / ggc) = 1 -v/c. When the real distance, v't'=V'T'@x=0 , between origins is used, Equation (2) becomes x=(1/g)(x'-v't') = (1/g)(x' -V'T'@x=0). The ratio of the real measurement made by B to the Einsteinian measurement for the distance from A's origin to the light signal is (gx) / (x/g) = gg. Thus it makes a tremendous difference how B measures the distance between origins, but A at true rest can use any method when his time is real and thus does not depend on location. When T'@x' is used, the Lorentz transformations approximate reality when v/c is small, but if T'@x-0 can be used to find A's origin, i.e., V'T'@x=0 , the transformations will reflect reality, with the indicated inversion of the real g in Equation (2). Real local time in any frame can be observed compartively from any other frame when the clocks in the observer's frame are truly synchronized, i.e., when they all read the same throughout his frame regardless of location. If the frame being measured is absolute, the clock rates in that frame will be observed comparatively as absolute time, the fastest time in the universe. Any synchronized common universal time can be used in place of absolute time. It does not necessarily have to be the time originating in the absolute time frame. Even if absolute space did not exist (e.g., as would be the case with ballistic light propagation and no ether), an agreed upon common universal time could still exist. If we synchronize twin clocks while they are together in a truly moving frame and then move them absolutely and in opposite directions at th same ilusory speed and bring them to rest in their new locations, the clock readings will not agree, i.e., one clock reading will be ahead of the other. We now ask, "Can the discrepancy in the clock readings be made smaller by accelerating our reference frame in a certain direction and then transforming it into a new frame?" The answer has to be "yes" because the synchronization of clocks varies from frame to frame. Of course, we must choose the correct direction, otherwise the discrepancy in clock readings will becone larger. (An exceptioin occurs when the initial and final frames have the same speed relative to the ether. What happens when two relatively stationary reference frames proceed to move apart, one going in one direction and each coming to rest again in new locations? Relativity would have to say that their clocks would no longer have to truly agree, because if they did, then truly synchronized time would have to exist, and that would contradict the presumptions of relativity. But if the clocks disagree, the clock in one frame would have to be ahead of the clock in the other frame, and that would make one frame a preferred frame, which violates the first postulate of special relativity. THEREFORE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CLOCKS AGREE OR DISAGREE, SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY MUST BE MODIFIED. Ether theory resolves the dilemma by pointing out that when the clocks move with the same speed w.r.t. the ether (regardless of direction), they will still be synchronized, but when they do not move with the same speed, they will not agree. The real asymmetry of the tempo of oppositely directed clocks moving w.r.t. one's own absolutely moving frame when their corresponding Einsteinian speeds are equal is what generally prevents us from using such clocks to absolutely synchronize our own stationary clocks. The asymmetry can be detected by having a pair of clocks, instead of a single clock, moving in each direction and letting an observer at rest with each pair of clocks locally synchronize his own pair of clocks with light signals and then have all the clocks symmetrically come to rest in our frame, so that the original spacing of the clocks continues to be maintained, but with the clocks from formerly different frame now adjacent. We can compare the differences in the readings of two adjacent pairs of clocks. If they are different, it indicates that we possess an absolute velocity. If real time is not used, measurements can be seriously distorted. Nature has little respect for illusory measurements unless they combine to produce a real result. Relying on illusory velocity measurements in calculating the impact of the kinetic energy of a small meteoroid on a space ship might prove to be fatal. Even though the mutual momentum is the same for identical rest masses, the corresponding kinetic energy measurements would be slightly different for low absolute velocities but would be very much different if one observer has a high absolute velocity. [A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] Such an observer would then suffer greater, if not devastating, damage depending on the degree to which his absolute velocity [differs from] the absolute velocity of the mass he is measuring. This is true because the energy is in units of mvv and the relative velocity of an absolutely moving slower mass w.r.t. a faster observer is greater than the velocity of the faster observer's mass measured by the slower observer. Adding an absolute velocity component to a frame at absolute rest and a different absolute velocity component to a frame in motion, so that, e.g., the illusory velocity between the frames remains the same, will not change the traditional role of the traditional Lorentz transformations. The situation is completely compatible with the ether. However, the Einsteinian relativistic scaling factor, gamma, becomes illusory when both frames are traveling in any direction through the ether and should really be designated as G. The illusory G is what prevents the determination of the existing absolute velocities in this situation, when using Einsteinian methods. If the true GsubBA and the relative speed were known, absolute velocities could be calculated by the observers. When two inertial frames are in motion w.r.t. the ether, both will experience real relativistic effects which will affect the measurements which observers in one frame make of the other frame. Suppose Observer A in inertial reference frame A first compares his clock rate with the clock in a different inertial frame B. Now when Observer A accelerates to a new inertial frame C and again compares clock rates, he will generally find that B's clocks now are measured to run at a different rate. If there is a real change in the ratio of the clock rates, what physical changes account for the diffrence? Since nothing has changed in the B frame, we can only conclude, if relativistic effects are real, that something has physically changed (clock rates, lengths, etc.) in the A frame. If B now accelerates to a new inertial frame, such that the original measured ratio of clock rates is restored, things must physically change in the B frame. Therefore we now have a situation where relativity would have us believe that the initial and final situations are identical, whereas we know that clock rates etc. have really changed in both frames. Thus an infinite number of really different physical situations exist which would be indistinguishable under the assumptions of relativity. Clearly, the different inertial frames in relativity are generally equivalent only on a superficial level. When taking the light frame into consideration, we now have three reference frames. The quantities measured by the slower moving A frame will be represented by double primes and, to distinguish which frame is being measured, we will use the subscripts, A and B, to indicate the moving A frame and the moving B frame, respectively, with the B frame (single-primed) quantities generally representing the faster moving frame (as before) and the unprimed quantities, e.g., gsubA and gsubB, representing measurements from the absoute frame. The first Lorentz transformation would then be represented as x'-gsubB(x -vsubB t) and x''=gsubA(x -vsubA t)], and the second Lorentz transformation would be written as x=gsubB(x' +vsubBT') and x=gsubA(x'' +vsubAT'') where vsubB=-V', vsubA=-V'', and V' andV'' are the measured velocities of the absolute frame. When the moving frames are comparing measurements, it can be shown that x'=GsubAB(x'' +VsubB''t'') and x'' =gsubAB(x' +VsubB''t'') for the first and second Lorentz tranformation equations, respectively, where GsubAB=GsubBA is the illusory relativistic scaling factor as calculated between frames A and B by observers in either frame, and VsubB'' (which is equal to -VsubA') is the illusory velocity of B as seen by A,in keeping with the traditioinal Lorentzian convention of keeping the velocity between the frames positive when B is moving to the right w.r.t. A. It can also be shown that x'/x''= [(c-VsubB'') / (c+VsubB'')]^1/2. Actually GsubAB can be represented as both GsubA' and GsubB'' where GsubA'=GsubB'' , but since the unprimed absolute observer never measures illusory quantities, there should be no ambiguity if the primes are omitted. All of the Lorentz transformations which hold between the absolute frame will also hold between two moving frames except that the corresponding quanties which had been unique to the one moving observer will also be illusory for the second moving observer as well. Since the respective measurements and quantities in moving frames A and B can be related to corresponding quantities in the absolute frame, it is thus not difficult to find the relationship between quantities viz. a viz. frames A and B. E.g., real parallel velocities measured from a moving frame are always higher by a factor of gg than the same velocities measured from the absolute frame. Thus the ratios of real velocities measured from the moving B frame to those measured from the slower moving A frame would be gsubB gsubB / gsubA gsubA = gsubBA gsubBA , where gsubBA in this case is the ratio of real lengths or of real clock rates in the A frame to those in the B frame. The relationship between measured illusory velocities and between real and illusory velocities can also be determined. In the case of real velocities, we can simply change the equation for parallel one way light speed, c'=gg(c-v) , to vsub2'=gsubBgsubB(vsub2-vsub1), where vsub1 and vsub2 are the absolute velocities of moving frames A and B and vsub2' is the real veocity of the new moving frame (B) as measured by the original moving frame (A). Our new equation actually encompasses the first, since light itself is just another velocity to be measured. In order to add velocities, we use the Lorentz time transformation and obtain Vsub2'=dsub2'/Tsub2' = vsub2't' / {t' -[vsub1(vsub2't') /cc]} = vsub2' / ( -vsub1vsub2' /cc, where dsub2' is distance. Solving for vsub2' gives us vsub2' = 1 / (vsub1/cc + 1/Vsub2'). Solving the previous equation for vsub2 gives us vsub2=vsub1 + (vsub2' /gsubB gsubB) and inserting our expression for vsub2' yields vsub2=vsub1 + {1/ [gg(vsub1/cc +1/Vsub2')]} = vsub1 + {[1 -(vsub1 vsub1 /cc)] / [(vsub1 /cc) + (1/ Vsub2')]} = [(vsub1 vsub1/cc) + (vsub1/ Vsub2') +1 - (vsub1/cc)] / [(vsub1/cc) + (1/ Vsub2')] = [(vsub1/ Vsub2')+1] / [(vsub1/cc) + (1/ Vsub2')] = (vsub1 + Vsub2') / [1 + (vsub1 Vsub2' /cc)]. The first Lorentz transformation, x'=g(x-vt), in its original form, will also balance when applied to two moving frames, even when the absolute gamma, g=gsubB/gsubA, is used, provided that the time, T , becomes A's illusory time, T''subx'=0 , at the position of B's origin, rather than at the position of the light signal. We can also write x'=g (x'' - VsubB''t''subx'=0) to show that both frames are in motion, where g=gsubB/gsubA == gsubBA. The second Lorentz transformation, rewritten as x''=g(x' + V''T'), holds in the traditional relativistic form, x''=GsubAB (x' + VsubB''T'subx'), where T'subx' represents the illusory time at the location of the light. In order for this transformation to balance when g is real, we must write x''=(1/g) (x' + VsubB'' T'subx''=0), where again g=gsubB/gsubA. This equation gives us the true relationships between all real measured distances, showing that the frames are not equivalent. If one frame is at absolute rest, the only Lorentz time transformation involving real quantities would, of course, be t=gt' , where no time-phase factor is involved. If both frames are in true motion and we drop the double primes, the corresponding transformation would be t=(gsubB / gsubA)t' , (since tsub abs. = gsubB t' = gsubA t ). In order to obtain the corresponding Lorentz distance transformations involving only real quantities, we first write the real transformations for each moving frame viz. a viz. the absolute frame and then eliminate the absolute quantities as follows: x'=gsubB(x-vsubB t), x'/gsubB = x-vsubB t, x''=gsubA(x-vsubA t) , x''/gsubA=x-vsubA t. x=x'/gsubB + vsubB t = x''/gsubA t = (gsubB/gsubA)x'' - gsubB delta vt = (gsubB/gsubA) (x''-v''t''). [We also have] x''=(gsubA/gsubB)x' - gsubA(vsubA-vsubB)t = (gsubA/gsubB)x' - gsubA delta vt = (gsubA/gsubB)x' - gsubA(v't'/gsubB) = (gsubA/gsubB) (x'-v't'). When the correct Lorentzian times are used, g turns out to be real, whereas when only the traditional Lorentzian times are used, it turns out to be illusory. In mathematical terms, we represent Frame B at true rest by equating x' -> and |x'| <- , where the arrows represent the direction of the light. Thus x' -> = ct' -> = | (-)c t'<- | = ct' <- and t' -> = t' <- , for light signals emanating form the origins when the origins of A and B coincide, and traveling to the left as well as to the right. There is really only one master equation representing the Lorentz transformations, and that is x'/x=cT'/cT=[(c-v) / (c+v)]^1/2. However, when actual numbers are inserted, this equation can not SIMULTANEOUSLY represent both Frame A at rest (or relative rest) [with B moving] and Frame B at rest (or relative rest) [with A moving]. For a given physical situation, conventional relativity correctly allows only for unique values of x' -> , x' <- , x -> , x <- , T -> , T<- , T' -> and T' <- at a given time. When one frame is at true rest, either x' -> = | x' <- | or x' -> = | x' <- | (c-v) / (c+v). Only physical measurements can determine whether A or B is the preferred frame. The illusory nature of special relativity becomes very apparent when two frames are moving in opposite directions at the same absolute speed w.r.t. ether. In such a situation the frames are truly equivalent and experience identical real relativistic effects. However, when using Einstein's method for setting clocks within their respective frames, each observer will continue to measure the other frame's clocks to be running slow, the other rods to be shortened and the other masses to be heavier, which in each situation is a total illusion. In the case of a head-on collision between truly identical twin masses in the respective frames moving [at the same absolute rate] at nearly the speed of light, mutual destruction will result, even though each observer may believe that the other apparently-almost-infinite indestructible (but actually equal) mass will destroy him. Although there is normally a REAL difference in clock rates, lengths, masses and clock settings in different frames, the only difference which exists when both frames are truly equivalent [but moving in opposite directions] is the respective [Einsteinian] clock settings, or "synchronization," which are symmetrical when seen from the ether frame, but are different viz a viz the moving frames. If the frames are moving oppositely, each observer would have to regard the other frame's clocks as being synchronized in an opposite manner, which accounts for the "A>B>A" illusory comparison of clock rates, rods and masses, and for the fact that the Einsteinian one way light speeds will be measured to be the same. The case for the ether is becoming stronger as the deductive logic in support of such a reference frame in which light travels is being backed up by different experiments which are demonstrating the anisotropy of the one way speed of light. [D.J. Torr and P. Kolen, "An Experiment to Measure the Relative Variations in the One-Way Velocity of Light," U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984.] [E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986).] [E.W. Silvertooth, "Experimental Detection of Anisotropy in the Wavelength of Light," to be published.] [E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22, 1274 (1983).] Among the numerous things which can not be explained in any way other than by the ether are: 1) the constancy of the round trip speed of light, 2) the constancy of the Einsteinian reverse one way speed of light, 3) the reason why the speed of light is equal to a particular constant and not another, 4) the reason why c is a speed limit for material bodies, 5) the reason why the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source, 6) the only successful explanation of how light manages to get from one place to another, 7) the demonstrated change in the one way speed of light with its absolute orientation [D.J. Torr and P. Kolen, "An Experiment to Measure the Relative Variations in the One-Way Velocity of Light," U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984.] 8) the demonstrated change in node position with the absolute orientation of an interfering reflected laser beam, [E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986).] [E.W. Silvertooth, "Experimental Detection of Anisotropy in the Wavelength of Light," to be published.] [E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22, 1274 (1983).] 9) the interference of light [and the wave nature of light and matter], 10) the contraction of moving bodies, 11) the time dilation of moving clocks, 12) the increase of mass with velocity, 13) [the seeming validity of] Einstein's relativity postulates, 14) the Lorentz transformations and the Lorentzian time-phase factor, 15) relative clock synchronization, 16) relative simultaneity, 17) why Lorentzian time can be used in determining real distances and real momentum, 18) why non-equivalent inertial frames can appear to be equivalent, 19) the relativistic Doppler effect, 20) all paradoxes [and contradictions] of special relativity, 21) all physical mechanisms behind relativity, etc. etc. Since relativity without the ether can not be understood beyond a very shallow level, there has been a very unfortunate tendency to call some thoughtful questions improper, inappropriate, invalid, or irrelevant (if not irreverent) and to declare that common sense and logical thought must be abandoned when it comes to some of the purportedly difficult aspects of the subject. Such remarks, however, indicate a lack of thorough understanding of relativity, thus making the questions appear to be unanswerable. ALL questions concerning relativity and the ether are valid questions which have valid answers -- and the rules of logic are never invalid. A theory with both feet on the ground need never fear a probing questtion. Any theory which can not explain what, how, and why things physically happen beyond a superficial level is incomplete. Physics, if it is correct, sooner or later can be understood.DISCUSSION:
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is incomplete because it provides no physical mechanism, model or conjecture as to why things happen on a physical level. Einstein himself admitted that his theory was only a theory of measurement, not a theory of the nature of matter or of radiation propagation. If the wave nature of matter had been known in the 1880s, things might have very well turned out differently. Lorentz failed at completely providing so-called first principles (except for the existence of the ether) only because the wave nature of matter was unknown at the time. (De Broglie proposed matter waves in 1923, which were later demonstrated in 1926.) But Einstein fared even worse than Lorentz, in the sense that he completely ignored the physical mechanisms, which must obviously exist if the physical universe exists, and practically turned the universe into a black box. A physical model, however imperfect, is mandatory if the universe is ever to be understood on a deeper level. Although Einstein did not completely reject the ether, preferring instead to call it superfluous, neither did he follow up on its ramifications. In any case, the ether concept is extremely useful and a great convenience in solving the problems of special relativity. The current model of the ether has thus far never failed and provides the only working understanding of relativity and the Lorentz transformations. Relativity, at the very least, is counter-intuitive until the ether is brought into the picture. As long ago as 1900 it was realized that if two independent sources of light could interfere, a simple experiment would at once reveal the earth's motion in space. [S. Goldberg, "Understanding Relativity," (Birkhauser Boston, 1984) p. 237.] Today this experiment has been successfully performed, but with a single laser light source and a mirror. [E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986).] [E.W. Silvertooth, "Experimental Detection of Anisotropy in the Wavelength of Light," to be published.] [E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22, 1274 (1983).] The one way speed of light also seems to have been measured, [D.J. Torr and P. Kolen, "An Experiment to Measure the Relative Variations in the One-Way Velocity of Light," U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984.] and both results are consistent with findings concerning thre reference frame of the cosmic background radiation. [G.F. Smoot, M.V. Gorenstein, and R.A. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 898 (1977).] Moreover, the ether theory predicts slight differences in enegy measurements which, if experimentally carried out, could indicate which theory is correct. [A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.]CONCLUSIONS:
It seems extraordinary that most contemporary physicists appear to be unwilling to accept the possibility of the existence of the only thing, the ether, which together with the wave nature of matter can physically explain the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein's designation of c for the one way speed of light bears no [similarity] to the real one way speed of light in a truly moving reference frame. If the real one way speed of light were truly equal to c in all inertial frames, it would not have been necessary for Einstein to attempt to change the definition of time in order to force it to be equal to c, nor to set up artificial rules for making measurements -- rules which are unnecessary when real time is used. It is mathematically and physically impossible for the real non-ballistic, source-independent, one way speed of light to be isotropically equal to c for all observers. When the one way speed of light is mathematically forced to be isotropically equal to c, (something which it really is not) for all observers, then virtually all other measured speeds are forced to be what they really are not, including the speed of one frame as measured by another. Either clocks in different frames run at the same real rate or they do not. If they do not, then the frames are not totally equivalent. If they do, then relativistic effects are illusions, which conflicts with the demonstrated fact that a moving clock loses time on a go-and-return trip. Relativistic effects do not occur because frames seem to be equivalent. Frames seem to be equivalent because relativisitic effects occur. A proper understanding of the ether not only would have led to the prediction of the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but also to valid methods for genuinely determining absolute velocity, in addition to the derivations of the Lorentz Transformations and other valid equations connected with the Special Theory of Relativity. Recent experiments based on an advanced understanding of ether theory indicate that the earth does indeed possess an absolute velocity. Additional experimental work involving differences in the energy equations predicted by the two theories could shed additional light on which theory is correct. [A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published.] REFERENCES: 1) A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 891 (1905). For an English translation, see A. Einstein et al., "The Principle of Relativity," Dover Publications, New York, (1958). 2) A.J. Brown, "A New Test for the Anisotropy of Space," to be published. 3) D.J. Torr and P. Kolen, "An Experiment to Measure tne Relative Variations in the One-Way Velocity of Light," U.S. Natl. Bur. Stand., Spec. Publ. 617, 1984. 4) E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986). 5) E.W.Silvertooth, "Experimental Detection of Anisotropy in the Wavelength of Light," to be published. 6) E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22,1274 (1983). 7) A.A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci., 122, 120 (1881); A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, Am. J. Sci., 34, 333 (1887); Phil. Mag., 24, 449 (1887). 8) R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, Phys. Rev., 42, 400 (1932). 9) H.A. Lorentz, Proc. Acad. Sci. (Amsterdam), 6, 809 (1904). 10) J. Larmor, "Aether and Matter," (Cambridge University Press," (1900). 11) R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, "The Feynman Lectures in Physics," (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1963), p. 16-2. 12) S.Goldberg, "Understanding Relativity," (Birkhauser Boston, 1984), p. 237. 13) G.F. Smoot, M.V. Gorenstein, and R.A. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 898 (1977).
The Author |
---|
Arlin may be reached by E-Mail at cancerinfo@webtv.net (Arlin Brown)