lidal

In effect, this view is the same as ether view because it predicts a fringe shift for the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment if you don’t apply length contraction and time dilation. SRT tacitly, 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). Even with all this, SRT still fails with regard to the MM experiment because of the small fringe shifts observed, such as in the Miller experiments. SRT makes one mistake and then makes another mistake to correct the first mistake. If there was no tacit assumption of the ether, there would be no fringe shift in the first place, and hence no need for length contraction and time dilation. I think what Einstein eliminated was the universal ether. There is still ether hidden in Einstein’s relatively moving reference frames. Einstein’s inertial reference frames are nothing but ether frames in relative motion. In each of Einstein’s inertial frames, light is treated like ordinary local phenomena, such as sound waves.

Correction about what I have said the about the wave equation, quoted above. Let me start from formulating Apparent Source Theory: The effect of absolute motion of an observer is to create an apparent change in source position relative to the observer. This means that the effect of absolute motion is only to create an apparent change in the point of light emission (i.e. an apparent change in the past position of the source). Light takes more time to reach an observer absolutely moving away from a light source not because , unlike ether theory, the group velocity of light relative to the observer has changed from c, but because the point of light emission has apparently moved away from the observer. Therefore, light acts as if it travelled an apparent distance D', not the actual/physical distance D, where D' = D c / (c - V) . Therefore, the group velocity of light for absolutely moving inertial observer is constant c , NOT c + - V. This is the accurate model regarding group velocity. There are two interpretations of group velocity: physical and apparent; I have mentioned this in my opening post in this thread . As stated above the apparent group velocity of light is always constant c for an inertial observer. The physical group velocity of light, however, is variable : c + - V . The physical group velocity is the velocity measured in the conventional way: by dividing the physical distance travelled in a given interval of time. It is the apparently constant group velocity interpretation that is fundamental, not the physical variable group velocity of light. Therefore, fundamentally both the phase velocity and the group velocity of light in vacuum are constant c, in the case of an inertial observer. The wave equation for a moving observer should satisfy constant phase velocity and constant (apparent) group velocity of light. As you pointed out it is impossible to get an equation of the wave function whose phase velocity is c, but whose group velocity is c + - V. I just lost sight of the elusive theory ( AST) for a moment . Suppose that a light source is at rest, emitting light of frequency f. At the instant of light emission the observer was at distance D away from the source, moving away from the source with velocity V. The observer will observe light of frequency f ' = f e V/c , after a time delay of D / (c - V) .

In order to avoid any misunderstandings, let me formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional Michelson-Morley experiment again. 1. The effect of absolute motion of the Michelson-Morley interferometer is to create an APPARENT change of source position relative to the detector 2. This APPARENT change in source position creates a small fringe shift AS IF it is an ACTUAL / physical change in source position. From classical geometrical optics it is straight forward to see that (actual) change in source position creates a small fringe shift because the path lengths of the two light beams will be slightly different when the source position is changed slightly. For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson-Morley experiment, please read my paper on Vixra: " New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "

The modern Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments using optical cavity resonators are searching for something that doesn't exist in the first place: the ether. Like the conventional MM experiments they are designed and capable to detect the ether if the ether existed, but incapable to detect absolute motion. The ether should have been subjected to a thorough conceptual test even before doing any physical experiment. Nevertheless, the MM experiments are very important because they have succeeded in disproving the ether with a physical experiment. But the MM experiments (both conventional and modern) are based on a flawed and simplistic view that absolute motion is motion relative to the ether. Apparent Source Theory can explain not only the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments but also the almost complete null results of modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators. Let me first formulate Apparent Source Theory for the conventional MM experiments again. Small fringe shifts in the MM interferometer can be produced in two ways. 1. By setting the MM apparatus in absolute motion OR 2. By slight change of source position (1mm for example) about its initial position. ( a classical geometrical optics problem) The effect of absolute motion of the MM apparatus is to create an apparent change of source position relative to the detector (i.e. relative to the point of detection) The fringe shift for a given absolute velocity of the MM apparatus is equal to the fringe shift due to a corresponding actual/physical change of source position. For every absolute velocity there is a corresponding change of source position that produces the same fringe shift. This procedure turns the difficult problem of absolute motion into a straight forward,classical optics problem, which involves familiar laws such as 'angle of incidence equals angle of reflection '. The corresponding change of source position for every absolute velocity is determined by using the Apparent Source Theory (AST) . It is determined by the source detector distance, the magnitude and direction of the absolute velocity, and the orientation of the source detector line with respect to absolute velocity direction. By using this procedure, I have been able to predict a fringe shift of 0.013 which is of the same order as the measured fringe shift of 0.018, for the Michelson 1881 experiment. This discrepancy is because of lack of information on detailed dimensions of the 1881 experiment. (Only the 1.2m arm length is known) . One of the unexpected results is that the fringe shift depends not only on the distances between the mirrors and the beam splitter, but also on the distances of the light source and the detector from the beam splitter! Note that these distances are irrelevant in ether theory, Lorentz theory and SRT. By slight changes in the distances of the beam splitter from the source and the detector I got a fringe shift of 0.021. One of the significant results of AST is that the fringe shift for absolute velocities along the longitudinal direction is zero. This is unlike ether theory, which predicts a maximum fringe shift in that direction. According to AST, the maximum fringe shift occurs for absolute velocities in the transverse direction. This may explain why the Miller experiments gave a direction almost ninety degrees different from the CMBR and Silvertooth direction! For the detailed analysis of the 1881 Michelson experiment, please read my paper on Vixra: " New Interpretation and Analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory " The explanation of the null results of the modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators is basically the same. Suppose that, with the experimental setup at absolute rest, the two lasers are slightly moved back and forth about their initial position. Will this produce any significant change in the resonance frequency of the cavities? I don't think so. In the modern MM experiments also the effect of absolute motion is just to create an apparent change of source (laser) position from the point of observation.

The deeply hidden flaw in the current view of light is that it is being considered as ordinary local phenomena such as sound waves. Physicists have long avoided the word ether but have always thought about light in terms of the ether. Any view of light wave as an objectively existing (in the classical sense) peaks and troughs fixed out there in space (although time varying) is nothing but ether thinking. If one rejects the new theory that wavelength changes for a moving observer, then one is admitting /accepting the ether because one is thinking about a fixed /objective wave independent of the observer. The current mainstream (and 'natural') view of phase and group velocity is tied to the ether because both phase and group velocities are seen as aspects (parameters) of one objectively existing thing: the ether wave. Because both are features of the same entity, they are always connected together because both are derived from it. The new theory is that phase and group velocity are completely independent, and are not connected. I think this is the root problem. With the new theory, the group ( the energy packet) velocity is variable and the phase velocity is constant. The difficulty to understand this arises because we still think of both as different parameters of the same thing: the ether. Group velocity of light in vacuum is always c + - V relative to a moving observer. We should not think of deriving it from the wave equation like for sound waves. We don't derive the group velocity and the phase velocity from an (ether) wave equation in the case of light. Rather, I think, we formulate the wave equation from the phase velocity (c) , the group velocity (c +- V) , and frequency (from exponential Doppler effect) and phase (from Apparent Source Theory), which is the other way round.

Thank you for the comment. But your comment gave me a hard time trying to understand it perhaps because it is too brief. I could have easily misunderstood it. I assume that you are saying "not only phase velocity but also group velocity should be constant for a moving observer" That was also my view years ago before I made the crucial distinction of variable group velocity and completely independent phase and group velocities. I abandoned that idea because it led to paradoxes and also because observations, the Roamer experiment in particular, showed variable group velocity. If we accept that the phase velocity of light is constant for all observers, we have to make the distinction that phase and group velocities be independent in order to avoid the paradoxes. Paradoxes appear when there is acceleration, for example. I struggled with those paradoxes, for example, in one of my early papers "General relativity of electromagnetic waves " I will also respond to all the other comments from other forum members. I apologise for the delay so far, and for the coming few days.

The behavior of the phase ( and group) velocity of light in vacuum is the fundamental problem that needs to be solved. I am making a simple claim: the phase velocity of light in vacuum is constant independent of source or observer velocity. I have focused only on this problem because I think the problem of the speed of light in optical media is not as fundamental. We should first solve the simple yet fundamental problem of the speed of light in vacuum. A theory should be refuted or confirmed based on the claim it makes. Evidences of absolute motion and Apparent Source Theory 1. The Miller experiments that always showed small fringe shifts, with a maximum fringe shift always in the same direction in space, correlated with sidereal time 2. The Silvertooth experiment and the CMBR anisotropy experiment 3. The Marinov experiment 4. The Roland De Witte experiment The usual argument against absolute motion is that modern Michelson-Morley (MM) experiments give complete ( or almost complete ) null result. The problem is that physicists have been ignoring the above experiments and pursuing only those experiments that give null result, pushing the limits. Apparent Source Theory not only explains the large absolute velocities detected, for example, in the Silvertooth experiment, but also the small fringe shifts observed in the conventional MM experiments and the complete null results of modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators.

The reading of an electronic counter which counts the pulses for a fixed interval of time will change as the orientation of the rod relative to the absolute velocity vector is changed. For example, let Vabs = 390 km/s and D = 3m. The frequency of the pulses when the rod is parallel with the absolute velocity vector will be: 49999915.5 Hz The frequency of the pulses when the rod is perpendicular to the absolute velocity vector will be:49999957.75 Hz The difference in frequency will be: 42.25 Hz Therefore, in one second the difference in the counter readings will be about 42.24998. In 30 minutes, for example, the difference will be 42.24998*30*60 = 76049.964counts. This is the maximum? difference between the two counter values, for 30 minutes. This occurs when the axis of one pair of transponders is aligned with Earth's absolute velocity, while the other rod is orthogonal. The minimum difference is 0 Hz ( 0 counts for any duration) and occurs when both rods are orthogonal to absolute velocity. Therefore, the maximum frequency difference for a rod of 3m length is 42.25 Hz. ( for 100 m the experiment is less sensitive ) " . . .And we do a similar experiment (with clock measurements), and don't see this effect" What kind of experiments ? Do you mean GPS ? Clearly describe the experiment so that I can explain it in terms of Apparent Source Theory.

" Is it consistent with all phenomena? You have to come up with an experiment that would show you to be wrong, if you are indeed wrong. Not just ones where you could accidentally be right " Yes my theory is falsifiable. For a source detector relative velocity of 0.5c approaching , for example, Exponential Doppler Effect ( EDE ) theory predicts f '/f = 1.648 , where as special relativity (SRT) predicts f '/f = 1.732 For 0.9c, EDE predicts f'/f = 2.46 and SRT predicts f'/f = 4.36 In the case of receding relative velocity at the speed of light , EDE predicts f '/f = e , where e is Euler's constant , whereas SRT predicts f '/f = infinite.

The phase velocity of light in vacuum is always constant. This theory can be tested by experiments involving source and observer/detector in relative motion, such as the Ives-Stilwell experiment. The waveguide experiment cannot be used to distinguish between the new theory and classical theory because the source and observer are at relative rest, in which case the new theory makes the same prediction as classical theory. Failure of Newtonian physics does not necessarily lead to special relativity. When physicists found that moving source experiments contradicted emission theory, they discarded emission theory. And when they found that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicted ether theory, they discarded ether theory. This way the mystery of the speed of light eluded them for a century. This led them to think that all classical theories are wrong and they resorted to length contraction and time dilation. If they had thought about a possibility of fusion of the two theories, the history of physics would have been different. Emission theory and ether theory are not necessarily wrong, they are just incomplete individually. Fusion of the two will make them complete. For example, the following experiment can detect absolute motion. (I have proposed in my papers other experiments using interference methods that can detect absolute motion. ) " Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders " Yes, the theory of constancy of phase velocity of light is consistent with the fast ion beam experiment, which is a modern version of the Ives-Stilwell experiment involving absorption line of moving ions. Regarding the theory that gravity is a net electrostatic force, it is so simple, compelling that it can be seen as self evident. But I arrived at this idea by applying Apparent Source Theory to astronomical observation that the direction of Sun light and the direction of gravity are almost the same. See Tom Van Flandern's " The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say " Regarding the experiment, I should have mentioned that the axis of the instrument should continuously track , for example Leo constellation, in order to accumulate the time differences for one day.

A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light 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. I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity. One of the fallacious arguments usually presented in favor of relativity is the failure of classical theories and the lack of any competing alternative theory. The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory. Here I will present a compelling alternative explanation, thereby refuting this argument. Next I will directly present some of the profound results of the new theoretical framework. A comprehensive presentation of the new theory, which describes the intricate relations of the different features of the nature of light, can be found in my papers at the Vixra site. Listed below are some of them. " 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 " ( For the complete article including the figures, see attached pdf ) 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 β2 λ 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 Let us first see a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a precursor to the ultimate theory called Apparent Source Theory. This is just to demonstrate that explanations exist that do not require us to invoke length contraction and time dilation. Consider the following analogy. Consider a stationary observer A and a truck moving relative to A. Another observer B is on the truck, throwing balls towards observer A while the truck is moving relative to A. Suppose the truck ( and observer B ) moves towards observer A with velocity Vt . Suppose that the velocity of the truck is not constant. Let there be a requirement that observer B always adjusts the velocity of the balls relative to the truck ( Vbt ) so that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A will always be constant c , irrespective of the velocity of the truck. In this case, observer B should decrease the velocity of the balls relative to the truck in such a way that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A is always constant c. In the case of the truck moving away from the observer A, the velocity of the balls relative to the truck should be increased by the right amount. ( see figure is in the attached pdf) By observing the balls coming from the truck, an observer deduces that the velocity of the balls relative to the truck is c - V in the forward direction and c + V in the backward direction. When the truck is moving towards stationary observer A: velocity of light relative to observer A = (c - Vabs) + Vabs = c When the truck is moving away from stationary observer A: velocity of light relative to observer A = (c + Vabs) - Vabs = c Thus, the velocity of the balls relative to observer A is always constant c independent of the velocity of the truck, analogous to the speed of light being constant c relative to an observer at absolute rest, independent of source velocity. It is now easy to see the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment ( MMX ) by the modified emission theory above. Modified emission theory is just conventional emission theory in which the velocity of light relative to the source depends on the absolute velocity of the source. In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, therefore, any change of the speed of light relative to the light source will not cause a fringe shift because both the longitudinal and transverse beams will be affected ( delayed or advanced ) by equal amount. Note that we have not made any reference to the ether in the above theory. The above theory is just an attempt to present the ultimate theory ( Apparent Source Theory ) in an intuitive way. It is fundamentally not correct. Apparent Source Theory Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries. Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below. ( see figure is in the attached pdf ) 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. 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. See my paper at Vixra: " The Irrelevance of Abstract Reference Frames in Physics " - 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 ' . - 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. - 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. Proposed time of flight light speed anisotropy experiment Despite the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth, the CMBR anisotropy and the Marinov experiments. Many of the 'ether' drift experiments used interference method because of the difficulty of measuring extremely small differences in time of flight and because of the problem of clock-synchronization ( this problem does not exist in the new theory). Here I will propose a novel light speed anisotropy experiment that is based on the time of flight method. The experiment consists of two light transponders, say transponder A and transponder B, each fixed to the two ends of a rigid rod. Each light transponder consists of a light detector unit and a light emitter unit. The light detector, upon detecting a light pulse, triggers the light emitter, which emits a short light pulse. Suppose that, initially, transponder A is somehow triggered to emit a short light pulse. This pulse is detected by the detector of transponder B, which triggers the emitter of transponder B, which in turn emits a light pulse, which will be detected by the detector of A, which triggers the emitter of A, which emits a light pulse, and so on. The process can continue indefinitely. An electronic counter counts the pulses emitted. Suppose that the rod is aligned with the direction of absolute velocity of the Earth. Because of light speed anisotropy, light will take more time, say, from A to B than from B to A. The novel feature of this experiment is that it accumulates the extremely small time of flight differences, over several minutes or hours. The number of pulses counted in a given period of time will depend on the orientation of the rod with respect to the direction of Earth's absolute velocity. By using this effect, the direction and magnitude of Earth's absolute velocity can be determined, theoretically, with any desired accuracy. Conventional time of flight experiments use spatially separated light emitter and light detector. A single pulse is emitted by the emitter and detected by the detector. Because of the extremely small time of flight involved, it is difficult to detect light speed anisotropy by using this method using a single pulse. The new method circumvents this and any clock synchronization problem by using a continuous exchange of a short light pulse between spatially separated transponders, thereby accumulating (integrating ) the small differences in time of flight of light in two directions. A detailed description of the experiment is found in my paper at Vixra: " Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders " 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. Theoretical disproof of Relativity.pdf

A speculation on CMBR : The CMBR may be Doppler (red) shifted light from receding superluminal galaxies. Due to the high relative velocity of some galaxies, Doppler effect can cause visible light to be shifted down to microwave frequencies. This theory may also explain the cosmic x-ray background radiation, which is proposed to be Doppler (blue) shifted light from approaching superluminal galaxies. My paper is found on Vixra: “Can the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation be Doppler Shifted Light from Receding Superluminal Galaxies ? “

I was stuck with this problem because I missed the fact that the optical system described acts as a resonant cavity, as you pointed out. Changing the distance between the laser source and the mirror affects the light intensity at the detector (SWD). It is true that the first maxima (anti-node) of the standing wave always occurs at quarter wavelength from the mirror, but its value changes as the distance between the laser and the stage is changed. Other anti-nodes are at integral multiple of half wavelength from the first anti-node. Now I can explain why the phase of the SWD voltage, which is an AC voltage due to dithering of the mirror, changes as the stage is moved. i.e. why moving the mirror towards (away from) the laser source causes an increase of light intensity at the SWD for some laser-mirror distances and a decrease of light intensity for other laser-mirror distances. Intuitively, if the movement of the mirror makes the laser-mirror distance closer to being an integral multiple of the wavelength, the light intensity at the detector increases because the optical system will be operating closer to resonance. If movement of the mirror makes the laser-mirror distance farther from integral multiple of the wavelength, the optical system will be detuned and the light intensity at the SWD will drop. Thank you all for your invaluable ideas. If you have any other ideas or comments, you are welcome.

Consider again a laser source S, detector (SWD) and mirror. The laser beam is pointed towards the mirror at ninety degrees. The detector is placed between the mirror and the source, at distance L from the mirror and at distance D from the laser. We can remove the mirror and put a mirror image S' of the laser source. Now the detector is between S and S', at distance D from the source S and at distance D + 2 L from S'. We can consider S' as a physical source, 180 degrees out of phase with S. For example, if L= N λ/2, where N is an integer, the amplitude of the wave will be maximum at the detector because the waves from S and S' will interfere completely constructively at the detector. Now if the laser source S is moved back by distance ΔD away from the detector, S' will also move away from the detector by the same amount ΔD. The phase of the (incident) wave at the detector due to S will be delayed because S is moved away from the detector. But the phase of the (reflected) wave due to S' will also be delayed by the same amount. Hence the phase of the resultant (standing) wave will be delayed but the phase relationship of the incident and reflected waves at the detector will not change, because both are delayed by the same amount. The amplitude of the wave at the detector is determined by the phase relationship. Hence the phase of the standing wave will change, but its amplitude will not change. Changing the laser distance will result in change of absolute phase of the standing wave. But the amplitude of the standing wave will not change because the position of the detector with respect to the standing wave pattern hasn’t changed. The position of the detector changes relative to the standing wave pattern if the distance between the detector and the mirror is changed. Regarding dithering the mirror: Suppose that the detector is at a position between S and S’ such that the waves from S and S’ arrive in phase at the detector and hence maximum amplitude. (This occurs when L = N λ/2 . ) . Now if the mirror starts moving slowly towards the detector, which is equivalent to S’ moving towards the detector, the voltage at the detector starts decreasing because the waves will become out of phase, and the phase difference continues to increase as the mirror continues moving towards the detector ( we consider small movements less than half wavelength). Next consider the case of the detector placed between S and S’ at a point of complete destructive interference. This occurs when L = Nλ . The voltage detected will be zero. Now if the mirror is moved slowly towards the detector, the voltage at the detector starts increasing because the two waves now start to be more and more ‘in phase’ as the mirror moves. In the first case, the DC voltage from the detector starts decreasing and in the second case it starts increasing, for the same motion of the mirror. This means that if we have two systems, the detector placed at a point of complete constructive interference in one system and the detector placed at a point of complete destructive interference in the other system, and display the two voltages on the same oscilloscope, they will be out of phase. My problem is that how/why change in phase of the SWD creates a change in phase of the AC voltage detected at the SWD, as the mirror is dithered. There is a helpful article by the same author, but I couldn't understand it too. A glass is placed infront of the laser, which will be equivalent to moving the laser away from the mirror. http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Onewayonelaser/Standingwave.html I meant that the phase of the standing wave is not important. The standing wave is itself a result of incident and reflected waves. we can't think of the standing wave 'interfering' with any other wave, because it is the result of interference itself, if I understood what you mean. You have two sources S and S'. The two sources create two waves, the incident and reflected waves. The interference of the two waves creates a single wave, which is a standing wave. So we can't talk about this resultant wave interfereing with another wave because the standing wave is itself a result of interference.

What changes is phase with respect to the signal source. You can have two systems, with two signal sources with phases synchronized ( and same frequency, of course) and different cable lengths. Then you can see the two voltages on the same oscilloscope. Their phases will be different. But the phase difference does not make any difference for the experiment I mentioned in my opening post.

The amplitude of the voltage will stay the same. But the phase of the voltage will change, which is not important because an RF detector placed at that point will only measure the amplitude.

Consider a VHF signal source conncected to a cable that is shorted ( zero resistance) at its far end. From electromagnetic theory, the first voltage maxima of the resulting standing wave always occurs at quarter wavelength from the shorted end. Even if the distance between source and load ( short circuit) is changed by changing the length of the cable, the position of the first voltage maxima relative to the shorted end will not change.

This may be helpful. It also means that as the distance between the laser and the stage is changed, the amplitude of the voltage detected at the SWD will also change because, even if the phase relationship between the incident and reflected waves does not change, the relative amplitudes of the incident and reflected waves will change so that the detector voltage will also change, if the distance from source to detector is not too large, which is the case of the experiment I mentioned. But let me try to figure out how this can help me explain the experiment I mentioned.

I am gateful for the help. I will take some time to understand what you mean by this. But let me also present the problem mathematically: An ideally coherent laser source emits light wave according to : A sin ωt The incident wave at the detector ( SWD) will be : A sinω( t - ti) , where ti is the time delay from laser source to detector ti = D/c , where D is the distance between the source and the detector. The reflected wave at the detector will be: - A sinω( t - ti - 2L/c ) , where L is the distance between the detector and the mirror The negative sign above is because the wave will reverse phase by 180 at reflection. Sum of incident and reflected waves at the SWD will be: A sinω( t - ti) + - A sinω( t - ti - 2L/c ) = A sin ( ω t - ωti) + - A sin( ωt - ωti - 2ωL/c ) We can see that ti , hence distance D from laser, does not affect the voltage at the detector because the phase difference between the incident and reflected waves at the detector is always 2ω L/c , as we can see from the equation above.

It is the distance between the detector (SWD) and the the mirror that should be an integral multiple of half wavelengths, for maximum voltage at the detector. Changing the distance of the laser from the stage ( co-moving detector and mirror) will not affect whatever voltage detected at the detector.

The ampltude of the voltage detected at the SWD depends only on the phase relationship between the incident and reflected waves. The incoming wave's phase is dependent on the distance of the SWD from the laser but the phase of the reflected wave also changes as the laser is moved, so that the phase relationship between the incident and reflected waves will stay the same.

Thank you for the response. But suppose that the distance of the SWD from the mirror is adjusted so that the incident and reflected lights interfere at the SWD with complete constructive interference, hence a maximum voltage detected by the SWD. This will happen if the distance between the SWD and the mirror is an integral multiple of the half wavelength?, say N half wavelengths. Next the stage is moved away from the laser by an arbitrary distance. In this position,again there will be complete constructive interference because the distance between the SWD and the mirror is still N half wavelengths. The standing wave is locked to the mirror because its amplitude is always zero at the mirror surface. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html E. W. Silvertooth, special relativity, Nature 322 (August 14, 1986)

It is hard to find the kind of reference you mean, i.e. reference to it in mainstream journals or sites. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.2681.pdf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PhyEs...3..161W http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612201v2.pdf

Imagine a laser light source pointing towards a mirror at 90 degrees , so that the light will reflect back on itself. A standing wave will be created. Assume that a standing wave detector (SWD) is placed in front of the mirror, between the laser and the mirror. The thickness of the SWD is much smaller than the wavelength of the light, for good resolution. It is obvious that the DC voltage detected by the SWD will vary as the SWD is moved along the path of light, relative to the mirror, because the SWD would move relative to the standing wave. But assume that the mirror and the standing wave sensor (SWD) are mounted on a common linear stage that can be moved relative to the laser source, so that the distance between the SWD and the mirror is always constant as the stage is moved relative to the laser. The question is: will the voltage at the SWD vary as the stage is moved relative to the laser, along the path of the light beam? The obvious answer is: NO. This is because the standing wave is locked to the mirror and moves with it, so that the SWD is always stationary relative to the standing wave. Hence there will be no variation of voltage at the SWD. The distance between the mirror ( or SWD) and the laser is irrelevant. However, I saw an article in which the author reported an experiment in which he replicated the Silvertooth experiment. ‘ A Replication of the Silvertooth Experiment ‘ . The link to the article is: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Silvertooth/Silvertooth.html The experimenter (the author) concluded that the Silvertooth’s effect is due to temperature. My problem here is not whether Silvertooth’s experiment is valid or not. Actually, this experiment is basically different from Silvertooth’s experiment because the standing wave is locked to the mirror. Yet the author reported that the voltage at the SWD varied as the linear stage was moved. This experiment even violates fundamental accepted knowledge of elementary physics. It implied that the voltage at the SWD will vary as the linear stage is moved relative to the laser, even if there is no relative motion between the mirror and the SWD. Actually, in the experiment, the mirror is dithered and the change in phase of the AC voltage at the SWD is observed. Since the mirror and the SWD are co-moving, the phase of the SWD voltage should not vary as the stage is moved relative to the laser. Am I right or where did I go wrong? Please help in pointing out the problem. Thank you for your time.

According to the paradigm that existed for centuries, all thoughts and arguments in favor of (and against) absolute motion have always been associated with absolute space (or the ether) and, in fact, these two concepts have always been inseparable in our thoughts, i.e. 'absolute motion is relative to an objective absolute space'. Reconciliation of the Sagnac effect with Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment null result has always been a daunting task. The Sagnac experiments remained 'impossible' to be reconciled with all theories of relativity. This paper discloses the reason why solving this paradox remained a daunting task for almost a century: it required a paradigm shift!!! In this paper a new paradigm about motion and space is proposed: Absolute motion/ absolute space is intrinsic. Absolute motion is intrinsic to a physical object, just as consciousness is intrinsic to a conscious being. This paradigm may take us a long way, but this paper gives only a hint and much remains to be explored. The new theory in this paper has been developed in an attempt to reconcile Sagnac effect with relativity theories (Galileo's invariance principle, Einstein's two postulates and the ' Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves' already proposed by this author.) We will start from a brief review of previous theories proposed by this author and then discuss the new paradigm. The intention in reviewing previous theories is to bring all about relative and absolute motion and the speed of light to the same point. 1. Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves (and General Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves) Motion of an observer directly towards or away from a light source will result in an apparent contraction of the light (EM) wave towards the source or its expansion away from the source, respectively, resulting in Doppler frequency/wavelength shift. This theory can solve the paradox ' how can two observers moving relative to each other measure the same speed of light ?'. This theory has been proposed as an alternative to the 'length contraction, time dilation' hypothesis in Special Relativity. The speed of light remains unaffected by the relative speed of the observer. Motion of an observer in the lateral direction (relative to a light source) will result in - Transverse Doppler shift - A need for modification in the analysis of stellar aberration ' A novel solution to the century old light speed paradox. Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves'. ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0065v4.pdf) 2. Proposed experiment to test the ' Relativity of EM Fields/Waves ' theory. The theory of Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves can be explained as follows: Imagine a lights source S with a stationary observer A at some distance from the light source S. Imagine another observer B moving with velocity V towards the source. Assume that at t = 0 the light source is emitting (the peak point of) a light pulse. And at this same instant of time (t = 0) observer B is at the same point as observer A, but moving with velocity V towards the source. The postulate in this theory is that both observers will detect the light pulse after the same time delay! Observer B will not detect the light pulse earlier than observer A (as one would normally expect because B is moving towards the source). This is due to an apparent spacial compression (contraction) or expansion of EM fields/ waves, due to the motion of the observer relative to the source. If the envelope of the light pulse (a video pulse detected by a light detector) was saved and displayed on screens, the pulse received at observer B would be a temporally compressed (Doppler shifted ) form of the pulse received at observer A. But both observers would observe the peak of the pulse envelope after the same time delay, but with the width of the pulse received at observer B narrower than the width of the pulse received at observer A. This theory just follows from emptiness of space. If space is empty, then all observers should measure the speed of light to be equal to C, irrespective of their velocity relative to the source (The second postulate of Special Relativity). (Assuming that the observer and the source have independent motions. This will be discussed later ). Thus an experiment can be performed to prove (or disprove) this theory. If both observers A and B detect the peak of the light pulse after equal delays (at exactly the same instant of time), then this theory proves to be correct. However, the source should be far enough away from the observers, to get a conclusive result. If the light pulse is emitted from a source (laser light source) located on the moon, the delay will be about one second. Within one second, an aircraft with a velocity of 500 m/s would travel 500 meters. It takes light about 1.6 micro seconds to travel 500 meters. Thus, the observer (detector) on the aircraft moving directly towards the moon (observer B) is expected to receive the light pulse 1.6 microseconds earlier than the stationary observer (detector) (observer A) on the earth (according to existing theories of light and space/motion). According to the Relativity of EM Fields/ Waves theory, however, the detector/observer on the aircraft would receive the peak of the light pulse exactly at the same instant that the peak of the pulse is received by the stationary detector/observer A on the ground, but a narrower pulse. 3. Absolute motion (velocity) is dynamic Consider an MM device that has been in uniform rectilinear 'motion' for a long enough time. No fringe shift will be observed in this case. Imagine that the MM device is accelerated with some constant acceleration, a. Then absolute velocity, Vabs, will build up gradually as a 'dynamic' time integral of acceleration and fringe shift will be observed and increases as absolute velocity increases. Suppose that the MM device has been in acceleration 'a', for a long enough time. Thus, the absolute velocity no longer keeps on increasing and it will settle on some final value, Vabsf. Thus, for each value of acceleration ('a'), there will be a final absolute velocity, Vabsf, proportional to 'a'. Vabs = Vabsf ()) where Vabs = K . a , where 'a' is acceleration, K is some constant and τ is the time constant This theory has already been proposed by this author as: ‘ Dynamic Absolute Space’ 4. Absolute motion is intrinsic, analogous to consciousness. Imagine an observer O and a Michelson-Morley (MM) device (with a light source S and detector D), both inside a space craft moving in space. At first, suppose that the space craft has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time. Hence, as discussed above, the absolute velocity of the space craft would be zero. Observer O won't observe any fringe shift. He/ she would measure the speed of light (from S) to be equal to C. Suppose then that the space craft starts accelerating. Hence, as discussed previously, absolute velocity starts to build up. Observer O and the MM device have the same absolute velocity, Vabs. He would observe a fringe shift. You can imagine the observer and the source to be moving in some imaginary absolute space with velocity Vabs. Hence, observer O would measure the speed of light to be C + Vabs (if the source is in front of the observer, as seen in the direction of acceleration). If the source is behind the observer, he/she would measure C - Vabs. Now let us come to the intrinsic nature of absolute motion (velocity). Observer O measures C + Vabs (or C - Vabs) because the source and observer share the same absolute motion (velocity). Note that I didn't even say 'equal' , I said 'same'. They share the same absolute velocity : the absolute velocity of the space craft. The space craft, the MM device (with the source S, detector D, the mirrors, the frames) and the observer O move as a unit. Now let us see the distinction in this theory. Imagine that there is another observer O' in a different space craft, which is at rest relative to the space craft of observer A, but is moving independently. Assume that both space crafts can also accelerate together, but are always at rest relative to each other, but they always have independent motions. i.e. they don't exist/move as a unit. Assume that observer O' can also measure the speed of light from the source S, which is part of the MM device on the space craft of observer O, and can (some how) also look into the detector on the MM device. Note that the space crafts are not allowed to have any physical contact, and observer O' also is allowed only to look into the detector D (can't have any physical contact with it). Now, what velocity of light and fringe shift would the observer O' measure ?! Both observers (O and O') would observe a fringe shift, by looking into detector D. But observer O' can't explain the fringe shift ! For him, the source S is always at the center of the wave fronts, the speed of light is always equal to C, both the forward and lateral beams travel equal distances, . . . Now suppose that the detector D on the MM device (which was fixed to and moving as a unit with the device) was removed and observed O' tried to observe a fringe shift by using another detector D' (that is inside his own space craft) that is some how placed to detect fringe shift of light from the MM device. Note that the detector D' and the MM device (with detector removed) are on different space crafts, and have no physical contact. In this case, observer O' would not observe any fringe shift with his own detector D' , even when there is acceleration ! But observer O can observe a fringe shift with detector D that is on his own space craft. The speed of light relative to the detector D depends on the absolute velocity of the MM device, but the speed of light is always (as far as there is no relative acceleration between the two space crafts, in which case the effect of relative motion would appear : see 'General Relativity of EM waves' theory already proposed ) equal to C relative to the detector D'. Therefore, detector D’ can’t detect the absolute velocity of the MM device. Observer O' can't observe any fringe shift with his own detector D' and can't explain the fringe shift observed with detector D ! The absolute motion of the MM device is intrinsic to the MM device (to the space ship carrying it ) ! Only a detector that shares the same absolute velocity as the MM device can detect the fringe shift. Observer O can explain the fringe shift he is observing because he has already detected that he is in absolute motion ( he already measured C±Vabs). Observer O' would observe a fringe shift only if he/she had another MM device on his own space ship ! In that case, he would measure only the absolute velocity of his own space craft. Thus, an observer can observe the effect of absolute velocity (C± Vabs and fringe shift) only if he/she shares the same motion (absolute velocity) with the MM device. The source (the MM device) and the observer share the same motion if both are inside the same space craft. They share the same motion also if they are in different space crafts which have the same motion. This can be done only by fixing the two space crafts rigidly together. In this case, the two space crafts move as a unit, as a single object. This is the new paradigm. 5. Assumptions, speculations and reasonings in the development of ' Dynamic, Intrinsic' theory of motion/space The ' Intrinsic and Dynamic' theory of absolute motion/space presented above was developed in an attempt to reconcile the outcomes of MM's and Sagnac's experiments. The reasonings and assumptions followed in the development of this theory were as follows. - Absolute motion is related to a change in state of motion (acceleration) of an object and has no connection with the motion of that object relative to other objects or relative to a medium (an ether or an absolute space). - If all inertial observers agree on the motion of an object, then that motion is an absolute motion. Thus all inertial observers agree on rotational motion of an object. All agree on the same angular velocity of that object. Thus rotational motion is always absolute. - Translational motion is different. Not all inertial observers always agree on the same translational velocity of an object. However, all inertial observers will agree on the same acceleration of an object. - Now we have to make some logical speculation. If we accept that an object that has been in uniform rectilinear 'motion' for a long enough time is at absolute rest, then the acceleration of that object must result in an absolute velocity (as a time integral of acceleration). All inertial observers will agree on this velocity. - But that (absolute) velocity which resulted from acceleration (as a time integral of acceleration) should not be permanent and static because, if acceleration resulted in a permanent/static absolute velocity, a fringe shift would be observed in the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment (but didn't). Thus, it follows that absolute velocity must be dynamic (changing). Absolute velocity builds up during acceleration and, if the acceleration lasts long enough, (absolute velocity) settles in a final steady-state value and (absolute velocity) will be discharged/decay gradually towards zero (with some time constant) if the acceleration ceases. Note that after acceleration has ceased, the object is 'inertial' , but the object will have an absolute velocity until it discharges/decays completely (with some time constant) back to zero. - The above ' Dynamic' theory can account for the 'null' result of MM experiment. Let us see the paradox that arises, which required the new paradigm: ' Intrinsic' . The Sagnac effect has been the most difficult and daunting phenomena to be reconciled with any theory of relativity (and MM experiment). Imagine that a miniature MM device is mounted on and rotating with a Sagnac device. We can easily account for the fringe shift detected by the Sagnac device by assuming an absolute space/motion. The forward and backward beams start from the same point in space and, as the detector is in (absolute) motion towards the backward beam and away from the forward beam, the two beams will travel different distances before they arrive at the detector and this will account for the observed phase (fringe) shift. The absolute velocity of the detector (and the source) is equal to the product of angular velocity and radius (ωr). Although there is a fundamentally wrong assumption associated with this analysis (an objective absolute space), this is the simplest and the most straight forward explanation; this same explanation will be adopted with a different paradigm in this paper: an intrinsic absolute space/ motion. The assumption of an objective absolute space results in a paradox because then the MM device would also have the same absolute velocity as the detector of the Sagnac device (ωr) and we would observe a fringe shift accordingly. But according to the 'Dynamic' theory already proposed (and according to the MM ‘null’ result), this is incorrect and the absolute velocity of the MM device is different in its nature: it depends on the ' dynamic' time integral of its (centripetal) acceleration and thus directed towards the center of rotation of the Sagnac device , where as the absolute velocity of the detector as part of the Sagnac device is equal to the product of angular velocity and the radius (ωr), and is directed tangentially. Thus the two absolute velocities have fundamentally different natures, different values and directions !, even if the detector of the Sagnac device and the MM device always moved together. This was a daunting paradox that required a new paradigm that may replace the paradigm that existed for centuries. The way out of the above paradox is proposed as follows. Space is empty. An objectively existing absolute space or medium (ether) doesn't exist. But absolute motion exists. So absolute motion must be intrinsic to physical objects! The absolute motion (velocity) of an object is intrinsic to that object. The Sagnac device as a unit (as a single object) has its own absolute motion: rotation. What is rotating? The Sagnac device is rotating as a unit. All (inertial) observers agree on its angular velocity. We assume some imaginary absolute space associated with (intrinsic to ) the device in which the angular velocity of the Sagnac device is its absolute angular velocity. Then the source and the detector are (absolutely) moving (revolving around the center), in that imaginary absolute space, with velocity equal to ωr. Due to a difference in path length of the forward and the backward beams, then a fringe shift will result. The absolute rotation of the Sagnac device is intrinsic to itself. Even though the MM device is rotating with the Sagnac device, it is not constrained to have the same absolute velocity ωr as the detector of the Sagnac device because the Sagnac device is rotating in its own intrinsic absolute space, and not in an objective absolute space. There is no common objective absolute space in which both the detector and MM device move. Space is empty. Even though the MM device is rotating together with the Sagnac device, it has no role in the determination of the fringe shift detected by the Sagnac device. The MM device is not part of the Sagnac device. So, in the absolute space of the Sagnac device, only the Sagnac device is imagined and analyzed. The MM device should also be analyzed in its own intrinsic absolute space. That space is the space in which the velocity of the MM device is its absolute velocity, which is equal to the ‘dynamic’ time integral of acceleration. If the same detector was used as part of both devices, it would have different absolute velocities as part of each device. The Sagnac device is rotating in its own intrinsic absolute space and the MM device is translating (moving) in its own intrinsic absolute space. In the intrinsic absolute space of the Sagnac device, the detector is moving with an absolute velocity equal to ωr. In the intrinsic absolute space of the MM device, the detector is moving with absolute velocity equal to the ‘dynamic’ time integral of its (centripetal) acceleration. If the MM device detected a fringe shift corresponding to ωr, in that case it would detect rotation, but we know that it will not. If we say that absolute velocity is intrinsic to the MM device, then this requires that the existence of the MM device as a unit. As a unit, all parts of the Sagnac device, i.e the mirrors, the source, the detector, and even the connecting rods ! , 'know' each other ; they are moving as a single unit and are designed and constructed and arranged to detect (absolute) rotation. Even the frame of the device has a fundamental role, the same as that of other parts ! All parts of the device have the same role: detection of rotation. What is detected is rotation of the whole device. The whole device must exist if we are even to talk about its rotation. All parts of the device (the mirrors, the source, the detector, the frame) make up the device, and thus all have a fundamental role. We will discuss the consequences of this paradigm soon. The arguments can be restated as follows. Does a Sagnac device exist? Is it rotating? Yes. All observers can agree on these. The observers don't require the existence of absolute space or the ether to know this. So, whether a fringe shift will be observed or not depends on whether the Sagnac device is rotating or not, which in turn depends on the agreement of all inertial observers. The absolute motion of the light source and the detector follows from the absolute rotation of the device. Does an MM device exist? Is it (absolutely) moving? If all inertial observers accept absolute velocity as a 'dynamic' time integral of acceleration, then they will agree on the absolute velocity of the MM device. Thus what matters is what all observers agree on the (absolute) motion of a physical object. That motion is absolute motion and is intrinsic to that object. The agreement of all inertial observers on an absolute motion is the beginning of all analysis. Let us see another consequence of the new paradigm. Previously we stated that an observer can observe the effect of absolute motion (measuring C± Vabs) only if he/she shares a common (same) absolute velocity with the light source. According to the 'dynamic' theory of absolute motion proposed earlier, an accelerated MM device will be 'charged' with absolute velocity if accelerated and hence will form a fringe shift. Imagine that the parts ( the mirrors, the detector) of an MM device are not rigidly fixed to each other, but assume that the parts are arranged in space to form (rather simulate) an MM device. Assume that each part (mirrors, source, detector) can be accelerated independently. So all parts can be accelerated at the same time with equal (but independent) accelerations, so that they always stay together to form (rather look like) a real MM device. But they don't really exist as a unit. Then will a fringe shift be observed in this case also ? According to the 'Intrinsic' paradigm, no fringe shift will be observed even if the parts are accelerated at the same time to look exactly like an accelerated real MM device ! The argument goes as follows. If an MM device is accelerated, then it will develop absolute velocity and hence a fringe shift. This absolute velocity is intrinsic to the MM device. But an MM device, as a single unit, doesn't exist in the above case. So, we can't talk about (let alone observe) absolute velocity of an MM device when the MM device doesn't exist in the first place. Absolute velocity is intrinsic. This requires the existence of an MM device as a single unit. The parts of the MM device should exist as single unit (as an MM device) by being connected rigidly to each other, arranged properly, for an MM device to exist. A real MM device should exist. If absolute space (or ether) existed objectively, there would be no difference between a real MM device and an MM device with parts not rigidly fixed together. But absolute motion/ space is intrinsic and doesn’t exist objectively. The same argument can be made about Sagnac device. A fringe shift can be observed only on a real (with rigidly connected parts) Sagnac device. Even if parts of a Sagnac device rotate independently and look exactly like a real Sagnac device, the Sagnac device as a single unit doesn't exist ! If a real Sagnac device doesn't exist as a unit, to what will absolute rotation be intrinsic?! If we say that absolute velocity is intrinsic, then there must be a physical entity (object) to which it will be intrinsic. The analogy with consciousness is as follows: A conscious being should exist in the first place, before we talk about feelings and perceptions. Just as feelings and perceptions are intrinsic to the conscious being (e.g a cat), so is absolute velocity intrinsic to the physical object. 6. An observer can observe directly (with his own detector) only his own absolute velocity (fringe shift). An observer can see a fringe shift directly (with his own detector) only if he has the same absolute velocity as an MM device. Note again the fundamental difference between 'same' and 'equal'. Even if an observer is at rest relative to an accelerating MM device or a rotating Sagnac device, he will not observe any fringe shift directly (with his own detector, i.e a detector moving as a unit with him), if he/she does not have the same absolute motion as the MM device. The observer must be on the same space craft carrying the MM device or, in the case of the Sagnac device, the observer should rotate together with the device (as a unit) to observe a fringe shift directly (with his own detector). If an observer observes a fringe shift (absolute velocity) directly on an MM device, then that is his own absolute velocity ! If an observer detects a fringe shift (angular velocity) directly on a Sagnac device, then that velocity his own (absolute) angular velocity. An observer can't observe an absolute motion directly if he/she doesn't have that same absolute motion. In effect, this means that an observer can observe directly only his own absolute motion. With this paradigm, absolute motion would be analogous to consciousness. Only the physical object can 'feel', 'perceive' its own absolute motion. 7. An observer who does not have the same absolute velocity as a light source can not observe the effects of absolute velocity Imagine an inertial light source S and an inertial observer O, with independent motions. The observer will always measure the speed of light to be equal to C, irrespective of the relative motion between the source and the observer. If there is relative acceleration between the source and the observer, the observer will measure the speed of light to be different from C. These have been discussed in the two theories previously proposed by the author: 'Relativity of EM Fields/Waves' and ' General Relativity of EM Fields/Waves'. If an observer and a light source have independent motions, the observer will observe only the effect of relative motion (Doppler effect, stellar aberration, . . as discussed in the two theories mentioned above) and cannot observe the effect of absolute motion of the light source. One effect of absolute motion is measuring the speed of light (from S) to be equal to C ± Vabs. The other effect is the source not being at the center of the wave fronts. Another related effect is the anisotropy of the speed of light, relative to the source. Thus, an observer who has motion independent of the motion of the light source S will not observe these effects. He/she will always observe the source S to be at the center of the wave fronts, i.e. irrespective of any motion (absolute or relative) (or acceleration) of the observer or the source. Even if an observer just happened to be at rest relative to a source that is accelerating (absolutely moving), he/she cannot observe the anisotropy of the speed of light relative to that source. Thus an observer who is on an accelerating space craft can observe the anisotropy of the speed of light emitted from the space craft, but another observer with an independent motion cannot observe the anisotropy of the speed of light emitted from the accelerating space craft. For him, the speed of light is always equal to C, if he measures in all directions relative to the source, and for him the light source is always at the center of the wave fronts. 8. Effect of source-observer relative velocity when both are moving with the same absolute velocity Imagine an observer O and a light source S, at rest relative to each other, both inside an accelerating space craft, with the source in front of the observer as seen in the direction of the acceleration. Previously we discussed that the observer would measure speed of light to be C+Vabs. (And C- Vabs if the source was behind the observer). Now, the question is: What if the observer moves towards /away from the source with relative velocity, Vrel (while both are in the same accelerating space ship) ? What velocity of light would he/she measure ? He/she would measure the speed of light to be equal to C+Vabs, irrespective of the relative velocity Vrel ! Therefore, for the positions of the source and the observer shown above, the speed of light is always a constant C+Vabs! (if the observer was in front of the source, this would be C- Vabs). If the relative positions of the source and the observer is at an angle Θ relative to the acceleration (absolute velocity), then he/she would always measure the speed of light C' to be the vector sum of two vectors : C and Vabs, where the angle between the two vectors is Θ, irrespective of any velocity relative to the source. If the relative position of the observer and the source is lateral to the direction of acceleration (absolute velocity), the observer would measure C' as : C' = (C2 + Vabs 2) 1/2