I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory. I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense. " Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism, Inertia and Universal Speed Limit c - an Alternative Interpretation and Theoretical Framework " " A New Theoretical Framework of Absolute and Relative Motion, the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism and Gravity " " New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory " Einstein's "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment Einstein correctly discovered his beautiful "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment, but gave it a wrong interpretation, i.e. the relativity of length and time. The new interpretation of constancy of light speed is as follows: The phase velocity of light is always constant relative to the observer , irrespective of source or observer velocity, for uniform or accelerated motion. The group velocity of light behaves in a more conventional way: it is independent of source velocity, but varies with observer velocity. Einstein failed to make this distinction and this led to the special theory of relativity. The constancy of the phase velocity of light is a direct consequence of the non-existence of the ether. Physicists were led astray when they tried to 'explain' the constancy of the velocity of light, by proposing the relativity of length and relativity of simultaneity. The phenomenon of constancy of the (phase) velocity of light is to be just accepted because it does not have any explanation for the same reason that there is no explanation for light being a wave when there is no medium for its transmission. Physicists naturally sought to 'explain' the constancy of the speed of light because their thinking was always implicitly based on the ether. Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists. Imagine a stationary light source emitting a light pulse and an observer moving directly away from the source at (or near ) the speed of light. The new interpretation of Einstein's thought experiment is that the group will be 'frozen' but the phases will still move past the observer at the speed of light c , relative to the observer. For the phase velocity of light to be constant not only the frequency but also, unconventionally, the wavelength must change for a moving observer. f λ = f ' λ ' = c The change of wavelength for a moving observer is a unique, unconventional nature of light. This makes light distinct from classical waves, such as sound waves. This should raise a question: then what is the Doppler effect law governing light that can satisfy the above condition ? The classical Doppler effect law obviously fails to satisfy this condition. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light Searching for a function that can satisfy the above condition, I found a new mysterious formula governing the Doppler effect of light. f ' = f e V/c and λ ' = λ e -V/c , where e is Euler's constant Now f ' λ ' = f e V/c λ e -V/c = f λ = c satisfying the constant phase velocity. No conventional formulas containing terms like c ± V can satisfy this condition. Profoundly, the above formula not only satisfies the constant phase velocity condition, it can also explain the Ives-Stillwell experiment ! By applying Taylor expansion to the exponential function, we get exactly the same result as predicted by special relativity: Δλ = ½ β2λ The derivation can be found in my paper at Vixra: " Exponential Law of Doppler Effect of Light – an Explanation of Ives-Stilwell Experiment " Moreover, the new formula is defined for all values of velocity V: 0 ≤ V ≤ ∞ , whereas the relativistic formula (and classical formulas) become undefined for V ≥ c . Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas, implying the need for a new law of Doppler effect of light. The Michelson- Morley experiment Apparent Source Theory Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries. Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below. ( Fig 2 ) Apparent Source Theory is formulated as follows. The effect of absolute motion for co-moving light source and observer/detector is to create an apparent change in position ( distance and direction ) of the source relative to ( as seen by ) the observer/detector. The apparent change in position of the light source is determined by the source-observer direct distance and the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity. The easiest way to understand Apparent Source Theory is to ask a simple question: what is the effect of actually/physically changing the light source position of the Michelson-Morley interferometer (instead of setting it in absolute motion) on the interference fringes ? For example, what is the effect of actually moving the light source slightly backwards (to the left), as shown above, on the interference fringes ? Obviously, there will not be any fringe shift because, intuitively, both the longitudinal and transverse light beams will be affected ( delayed ) identically. There will not be any fringe shift also if the source is slightly moved forward (to the right ) because both light beams will be advanced equally. There will be a small fringe shift for other positions of the source, for example if the source is moved upwards or downwards. The new interpretation is that an apparent change of source position (caused by absolute motion ) will not create any significant fringe shift ( no fringe shift or a small fringe shift ) for the same reason that an actual/physical change of source position will not create any significant fringe shift. This explains the 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is the subtle nature of light that completely eluded physicists for centuries. The procedure of analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is : 1. Replace the real source by an apparent source 2. Analyze the experiment by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source position, not from the real source position. The real source is replaced by an apparent source in order to account for absolute velocity. Once this is done, the experiment is analyzed by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source and by using elementary geometrical optics. Once we replace the real source with an apparent source, we can assume emission theory, i.e. the speed of light is constant relative to the apparent source. Apparent Source Theory can be seen as a seamless fusion of ether theory and emission theory. Relation between constancy of phase velocity and Apparent Source Theory The constancy of the phase velocity of light ( and Exponential Doppler Effect theory ) governs the wavelength, frequency and phase velocity of light. Apparent Source Theory governs the phase delay and group delay of light.

Is that supposed to be: $f'=fe^{v/c}$ and $\lambda'=\lambda e^{-v/c}$? Also, you said this formula applied for the observer moving away from a stationary source. But in that case, the frequency is observed to decrease, whereas your formula has it increasing. What's up with that? Assuming you just made a mistake about the direction of motion of the observer, note also that we could expand your formula as follows: $f'=f(1+\frac{v}{c}+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{v}{c})^2 + \dots)$ This is a little different to the expansion of the relativistic Doppler formula, which is: $f'=f\sqrt{\frac{1-v/c}{1+v/c}}$ The relevant experiments have been done, of course, and it turns out the that the correct formula for the Doppler shift is the relativistic one, not your one. What are your thoughts, given that?

Thank you for the correction about the direction. Regarding the experiments, the exponential theory is fully consistent not only with the Ives-Stilwell experiment, but also with its modern version, the fast ion beam experiment. If you are referring to the fast ion beam experiment, The ion is receding from laser (frequency = fR ) and is approaching laser ( fB ). The frequencies of the two laser beams as seen by the ion are related to the transition frequencies as follows: f01 = fR e ( -V/c ) and f02 = fB e ( V/c ) ( e raised to the power of V/c ) where f01 and f02 are are the two transition frequencies, in the rest frame of the ion. In this case f01 * f02 = fR e ( -V/c ) * fB e ( V/c ) = fR * fB From which, ( f01 * f02 ) / ( fR * fB) = 1

Yup he's an electrical engineer, as I thought he might be: https://www.academia.edu/35656841/T...urce_Experiments_and_Emission_Theory_of_Light

Looks like it. I wanted something that showed what his background was. It does seem that, for some reason, there is a significant preponderance of electrical engineers among anti-relativity cranks and perhaps among physics cranks more generally. I have personally come across at least four, and someone I know on another forum independently came out with the same observation recently, so it's not just me. I don't really know why it should be. Perhaps because they know a bit about EM radiation but don't need to understand relativity.

Could be. I found myself musing on this some months ago in another forum, when another anti-relativity (and anti-QM) crank, also an electrical engineer, had just stomped out, after being taken apart over a period of several weeks. I observed:- " But as to why one finds electrical engineers with crank ideas about c.20th physics, it may be Maxwell, as you say. I suppose electrical engineering could be seen as a sort of apotheosis of c.19th physics. And then, engineering more generally is the subject epitomising human mastery and control of nature. By contrast, the uncomfortable ideas of quantum theory and relativity shake the foundations of this confidence in human mastery, by denying the absolute and deterministic nature of things. So perhaps they could come to be seen, in the minds of some, as a sort of "enemy" of the engineering tradition." (Obviously I don't in any way mean to cast aspersions on electrical engineers in general - indeed one of our best informed posters on this forum is one, I rather think. But it seems that sometimes, perhaps in retirement?, something can go FUNG! and crank ideas about relativity and/or quantum theory are the result.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )

We re-formulate Apparent Source Theory for the Michelson-Morley (MM ) experiment as follows. 1. The effect of absolute motion of the Michelson-Morley interferometer is to create an APPARENT change in light source position relative to the detector 2. This apparent change of source position creates a (small) fringe shift AS IF it is an ACTUAL / physical change of source position. Small fringe shifts can be produced in the Michelson-Morley experiment in two ways: 1. By setting the Michelson-Morley apparatus in absolute motion OR 2. By slightly changing the position of the light source ( 1mm for example ) about its initial position. The fringe shift for every absolute velocity of the MM apparatus is equal to the fringe shift for a corresponding ACTUAL change in source position. For every absolute velocity ( magnitude and direction ), there is a corresponding change in source position that will produce the same fringe shift. The corresponding change in source position is determined according to the AST procedure. It is determined by the source detector distance, the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity and the orientation of the source detector line with respect to the direction of absolute velocity. Apparent Source Theory can be seen as a seamless fusion of ether theory and emission theory. Some of the profound findings of the new theory - The ether does not exist but absolute motion does exist. Physicists wrongly concluded that absolute motion didn't exist when they failed to detect the ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was designed to detect the ether and was capable to detect the ether, if the ether existed. The MMX is flawed in that it was designed to detect the non-existent ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not fully capable to detect absolute motion. Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe. - The reference frame concept is wrong and should be eliminated from physics as a paradigm. The true natures of light and electromagnetism always elude the third 'observer' ( the reference frame ). The new definition of observer is the object ( particle, atom or device ) directly sensing or detecting light, electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena. - One of the profound, unexpected findings concerns the phenomenon of stellar aberration. The current, universal understanding is that a telescope needs to be tilted forward in the direction of observer's velocity in order to see the stars. Apparent Source Theory predicts that the telescope should be tilted backwards, not forwards ! - The same law governs the Michelson-Morley experiment and the phenomenon of stellar aberration: apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer ! See my paper at Vixra: " A new insight explains both the Michelson-Morley experiment and stellar aberration- Apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer " - Dual natures of light, electromagnetism and gravity. The speed of electrostatic and gravitational fields has dual nature: infinite and finite ( light speed c ) ! Static fields act as if they are both transmitted at the speed of light c and instantaneously. Light acts as if it travels both in straight line and in curved path ! For absolutely co-moving light source and observer, light follows curved path if we assume it as coming from the real source, whereas light always follows straight path if we assume it as coming from the apparent source. For co-moving charge (mass) and observer, the electric (gravitational) lines of force follow a curved path if we consider the real charge (mass), whereas the electric (gravitational ) lines of force always follow a straight path if we consider the apparent charge (mass). - Light is not only a local phenomenon, but also a non-local phenomenon. Light is a dual phenomenon: local and non-local! All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, local phenomena. The Michelson-Morley experiment was conceived and designed based on such a fallacious view. The special theory of relativity is a mistake built on previous mistakes. If the scientists had not considered light like ordinary local phenomena ( by considering light as an ether wave ), there would have been no need to speculate ' length contraction and time dilation ' . - There is a fundamentally flawed view of light like ordinary local phenomena, such as the sound wave. If one thinks of a light wave as some objectively existing peaks and troughs fixed out there in space ( although time varying), then one is thinking in terms of the ether. Physicists avoided the word ether, but couldn’t avoid thinking in terms of the ether. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is accepting the ether. Special relativity (SRT ) tacitly and wrongly assumes the ether and then applies length contraction and time dilation to make up for that (i.e. to get a null fringe shift of the MM type experiments ). If SRT didn’t assume the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation. - The group velocity of light can be seen both as constant and variable. For co-moving light source and observer, for example, the group velocity of light is always constant c if we assume that light is emitted from the apparent source position. If we assume that light is emitted from the real/physical source position, the group velocity of light will be variable. However, it is the constant group velocity interpretation that is fundamental. - Unlike classical fields and waves, there is no mixing of absolute and relative motion effects in the case of light and electromagnetism. This is why no absolute motion effect has been observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiments. Einstein's magnet conductor argument against the existence of absolute motion is wrong because magnetism is a relative motion effect, not an absolute motion effect. Weber's electrodynamics is the ultimate law governing electromagnetism, rather than Maxwell's. - Light speed limit exists, but it is not universal. 1. It applies only to physical objects that have mass. Electrostatic and gravitational fields can be transmitted instantaneously. 2. Even for physical bodies, it applies only locally. A physical body cannot move at superluminal velocities relative to local matter in the universe, but it can move superluminally relative to distant matter in the universe. We know that superluminal galaxies have already been observed. - The cosmic microwave background radiation may be just Doppler shifted light from receding galaxies. - Gravity is a difference between electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces. In fact, this idea was first proposed by Michael Faraday. Apparent Source Theory has independently also led to the same conclusion. Gravity is a net electrostatic force and inertia is a net 'magnetic' force. Summary Two components of a new theoretical framework have been presented: 1. Constant phase velocity and variable group velocity of light. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light 2. Apparent Source Theory The new theoretical framework can be seen as a seamless fusion of classical and modern theories: ether theory, emission theory and constancy of the speed of light. Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation. In effect, special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated. With respect to Apparent Source Theory, we have seen only the case of inertial motion. Extension of this special case to the general case of accelerating observers, such as in the Sagnac effect, has been a daunting task that took several years to complete.

So what is your gravitational theory? You can't throw out special relativity without general relativity going along for the ride. Also, apart from the "special relativity is wrong" part, this mostly sounds like a restatement of the principle of least action, which does produce relativity, when applied via the Hilbert Action. All the "light behaves as if it travels instantly, but also not instantly" stuff is exactly this; it is already in the physics. To be more explicit about general relativity, imagine the following configuration: A satellite is in geosynchronous orbit above a pair of mirrors. Mirror A forms an angle between the satellite and Mirror B, which forms an angle between the satellite and Mirror A. That is, shining a laser at either mirror results in the laser bouncing off both mirrors and back to the satellite. A third mirror, Mirror C, reflects our laser right back at the satellite. First, we measure the round trip to the surface by bouncing a laser off C and seeing how long it takes to return. Next, we hit Mirror A, and see how long it takes to return, subtracting the round trip time we got by hitting mirror C. We now know how long it took the laser to get from A to B. Next, we set up a ground-based laser next to A, and point B back at A. We bounce a laser off the redirected Mirror B, and count the time for the return trip, and divide by two. The satellite will observe a different time for the transit from A to B than the ground-based measurement. This is pure General Relativity - the difference in measured time, or measured distance, can be straightforwardly calculated using the Schwarzschild time dilation metric. There's a tangible difference in both distance and time. We can get the same results if we swap out the mirrors for detectors coupled with emitters, and track the time of each detection event, eliminating the possibility that the phase shift is what we are really measuring - the light itself takes that long to arrive. With me so far?

Gravity arises because electrostatic attractive force is greater than the repulsive force. Consider two neutral bodies A and B. Gravity between A and B = electrostatic attractive forces between opposite charges of A and B MINUS electrostatic repulsive forces between similar charges of A and B. From your description of the experiment I can't see how : " The satellite will observe a different time for the transit from A to B than the ground-based measurement."

Because in general relativity, gravity represents changes in distance. This is generally called curvature; the relevant thing to consider about curvature for this purpose is that the surface area of a curve is different than the surface area of an equivalent flat region. Greater gravity equals greater change in distance, and more distance, compared to what an outside view would see. Of particular importance is that both space and time are curved, but time has negative curvature compared to space (where space gets bigger, time gets smaller). This is still called curvature, although it is harder to picture a curve with less surface area than an equivalent flat space. The practical ramification of this is that, for the satellite, a second is shorter (compared to the planet), and a meter is longer. So, from it's perspective, the distance between the two mirrors on the ground is shorter (it's meters are longer), but also less time passes for the light to move (it's seconds are shorter), in exact proportion. So if it were able to watch the light move in real time, it would observe the light moving at lightspeed. As would the observers on the ground. Because although their idea of the number of meters the light is crossing is different, and their idea of the number of seconds it takes is different, the number of meters divided by the number of seconds remains constant. This isn't idle fancy; we have to make corrections in real-life satellites to adjust for these effects, in particular the fact that time is passing slightly faster. GPS is a common example of a technology that, without relativistic corrections, just plain wouldn't work; we would constantly get the wrong answer from the technology about where we are if it didn't. If your model of gravity doesn't account for this effect, it doesn't match reality, and needs to be updated.