lidal

I meant that the Sagnac device is rotating, but the source and detector are in translational motion around the center of rotation, some what like the earth is in translational motion in its orbit around the sun. In the analysis of Sagnac effect, absolute translational motion of the source and detector is assumed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_interference) i.e translational motion in curved/circular path

The light source and the detector are assumed to be in (absolute) translational motion in the analysis of Sagnac effect. This is the simplest analysis of the experiment.

Dynamic Absolute Space: explanation for the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment Henok Tadesse, email: email removed by moderator Rotation and translation are the two (fundamentally different) kinds of motion in the universe. Rotational motion is the same in all inertial frames and hence can easily be understood as absolute motion. Translational motion, on the other hand, can be understood easily only as a relative motion and has never been clearly understood as an absolute motion. The results of Sagnac’s and Michelson-Morley’s experiments show that reality agrees more with logic. Einstein denied the validity of absolute motion altogether because of logic and because of null result of Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. However, it may still be possible to find a logic for absolute (translational) motion. If rotational motion is absolute then absolute translational motion must also be valid somehow and be confirmed experimentally. One reasoning behind this hypothesis is that we assume absolute translational motion in the analysis of Sagnac’s effect and get the correct result, even though the fringe shift in the final formula is explained in terms of the angular velocity (rotation) of the apparatus rather than the translational velocity of the source and the detector. With the existing logic we are used to in discussions about absolute motion, however, one will always end up in the “ relative to what?” question that always leads to confusion. Therefore, absolute translational motion must be redefined if it is to be valid logically. Absolute (translational) motion can be redefined as resulting from a change in state of motion (acceleration) of a body rather than as motion relative to some universal, static, absolute reference frame. According to the new theory, there is no universal, static absolute reference frame but there is a dynamic absolute reference frame associated with every object in the universe. Every object that is (has been) in uniform rectilinear ‘motion’ (for a long enough time) is at absolute rest and its absolute reference frame is the reference frame in which it has been at rest for a long enough time. Just after the state of motion of that body changes (acceleration), the body will develop an absolute velocity in that reference frame but that reference frame is also dynamic: changes continuously as the body continues to accelerate. Thus two bodies may be in relative motion and yet may have the same absolute velocity or may be at rest relative to each other and yet may have different absolute velocities at some instant of time. The fundamental difference between rotational and translational motions is that, in the absence of acceleration, the universe gradually ‘forgets’ any translational absolute velocities but always ‘remembers’ rotational (angular) velocities. The null result of Michelson – Morley’s experiment and the positive result of Michelson-Gale experiment support this view. Therefore, according to the theory of Dynamic Absolute Space, Absolute (translational) motion arises with change in state of motion (acceleration) Absolute motion or absolute reference frame is dynamic. Absolute (translational) velocity is dynamic. This means that it will ‘charge’ when there is acceleration and ‘discharge’ , with some time constant, when there is no acceleration. This is analogous to the charging and discharging of a capacitor. Thus, although the velocity of the earth relative to the sun is 30Km/s, its absolute velocity in space is almost zero because the acceleration of the earth is almost zero and because it has been in this state for a long enough time and hence accounting for the Michelson-Morley null result. An inertial body is a body which is in uniform rectilinear motion AND has been in this state for a long enough time. The center of the wave fronts from an inertial source moves with the source. This can explain the null result of MM experiment. And an inertial observer moving directly towards the source always measures the speed of light to be equal to C. This means that the radial component of the source-observer relative velocity has no effect on the velocity of light, in steady state (inertial) conditions. The author has already proposed an alternative theory to relativity for this: ‘Relativity of EM fields ‘ ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0065v3.pdf ). The lateral component of the relative velocity, however, will affect the velocity of light measured by the observer. This can explain the phenomenon of aberration of light. (http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0014v2.pdf ) Apart from the newly introduced concept of dynamism of absolute motion, the difference between Absolute Dynamic Space (ADS) theory and emission theories is that in emission theories the light beam acquires the whole velocity of the source but in ADS theory the light beam acquires only the lateral component of the (relative) velocity of the source, in inertial (steady state) conditions. This theory doesn’t disagree with the experimentally established independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source because, according to ADS theory, the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source in non-inertial conditions (as in experiments). The lateral component of the source-observer relative velocity affects the velocity of light only in inertial conditions, as in the phenomenon of aberration of light. The theory of ‘Absolute Dynamic Space’ reconciles the notion of absolute motion with Galileo’s principle of invariance and Einstein’s two postulates. Galileo’s principle of invariance and Einstein’s two postulates are valid in the steady state (inertial) conditions. This theory, together with the ‘Relativity of EM Waves/light ’ already proposed by the author, explains many of the phenomena and experiments: Experiments confirming the independence of the speed of light of the speed of the source Michelson –Morley experiment null result Stellar aberration Sagnac effect Dynamic Absolute Space-3.pdf

Dynamic Absolute Space : explanation of the null result of Michelson- Morley experiment Henok Tadesse e-mail: email and telephone removed by moderator The beloved idea of relativity (Galilean invariance and Einstein's two postulates) with the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment at first seem to bring an end to the problem of absolute motion once and for all. It is when one considers Sagnac's and Michelson-Gale experiments equally supporting the validity of absolute motion that one realizes relativity is not the whole story. For anyone who is unbiased and who seeks the truth, it is impossible to settle in one view (either relativity or absolute space) and one always keeps swinging between the two because of these contrasting experiments equally support each view and because there is no theory yet that reconciles the two or decisively eliminates one or the other view. The controversy over the validity of relativity or absolute space lasted for a century and still remains unsettled and the contrasting results of these experiments is one of the main factors. Few theories exist that decisively reconcile the results of these two contrasting experiments. Ether and emission theories fail to explain the MM null result and special relativity requires length contraction and time dilation and denies absolute motion altogether. All existing emission theories disagree with the many experiments confirming the independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source. Therefore, few theories exist that agree well with all experiments and observations and that decisively settled the controversy. In light of this situation, new and better theories are still needed even if anyone believes in the correctness of existing theories. The new theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ proposed here has the potential to reconcile the contrasting results of Michelson-Morley and Sagnac’s experiments and agrees with the postulates of special relativity and with experiments that confirm the independence of the speed of light of the speed of its source. The new theory is a framework that reconciles Galilean and Einstein’s invariance principle with the ever existing concept of absolute space. The theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ proposed here states that absolute motion is a change in state of motion rather than motion relative to some universal reference. Absolute motion in space is a change of the state of motion of a body from its uniform rectilinear state of motion in which it has been for a long enough time. Imagine a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion in free space for a long enough time, and that it is at rest in some inertial frame. According to the theory of ‘Absolute Dynamic Space’, the absolute velocity of the body is zero, even if it is not at rest relative to other bodies. Absolute reference frame is the inertial reference frame in which a body has been at rest for a long enough time. Therefore, any acceleration of the body in this inertial reference frame will result in absolute motion of the body in space. As the body starts accelerating, its absolute velocity increases and is determined as the time integral of its absolute acceleration, with t=0 taken as the time at which the body started accelerating, and its initial absolute velocity being zero because the body was initially at rest in that inertial reference frame. For accelerations that are not too small and for short-term, absolute velocity is the time integral of the acceleration of the body. Assume that the body, after accelerating for some time, settles on a new velocity V1 relative to that inertial frame. Thus, the absolute velocity of the body in space at the end of the acceleration period will be V1. Assume that the body remained in the same state of motion for a long enough time. According to the new theory, although the absolute velocity of the body was V1 at the end of the acceleration period, it will gradually reduce back to zero if the body continues to remain in the same state of motion, i.e in a uniform rectilinear (unaccelerated) motion. This means that the absolute velocity of the body will ‘discharge’ gradually towards zero, analogous to a capacitor discharging gradually to zero voltage.Note that this doesn’t mean that the velocity of the body relative to other bodies decreases. The above definition of absolute velocity as the time integral of absolute acceleration applies correctly for accelerations that are not too small and is correct for short-term. Suppose that the body continuously accelerates for a long time. In this case, the absolute velocity cannot be determined accurately by integrating the acceleration over such a long time. Although the absolute velocity of the body continuously increases due to the acceleration, it will also ‘leak’ , so the absolute velocity is always less than the time integral of the acceleration taken over a long time interval. During and for some time after the acceleration, the absolute reference frame continuously changes and finally settles to be the inertial reference frame in which the body is at rest. This means that when a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time, its absolute velocity in space reduces gradually to zero and the new rest frame of the body becomes the absolute reference frame for that body, and the absolute velocity of the body is zero as it is at rest in this frame. Any subsequent acceleration of the body results in motion of the body in this reference frame, and hence in absolute motion. The absolute velocity of the body is the velocity of the body in the reference frame in which the body has remained at rest for a long enough time. The inertial reference frame in which a body has been at rest for a long enough time becomes the absolute reference frame for that body. Therefore, the absolute velocity of a body in space is determined both by the acceleration of the body and the length of time the body remains in a uniform rectilinear motion. The longer the time a body remains in its state of uniform rectilinear motion, the more time available for the absolute velocity to ‘discharge’ back to zero. This also means that the larger the acceleration, the more accurately the absolute velocity of the body be determined as the time integral of acceleration. Thus the more accurate definition of absolute reference frame is : the inertial reference frame in which the velocity of the body is the absolute velocity of the body because the absolute reference frame of a body changes continuously (is dynamic). The theory of ‘Dynamic Absolute Space’ can explain the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. This theory reconciles Galileo’s invariance principle and the two postulates of Einstein with the concept of absolute space. Relativity (Galilean and Einstein’s invariance) is valid in a steady state condition whereas absolute space is valid in non steady state condition. Relativity is valid when a body has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time, and absolute space is valid otherwise. According to this theory, the absolute velocity of Michelson Morley’s interferometer (of the earth) is much smaller than 30Km/s even though its velocity relative to the sun is 30Km/s. The earth can be considered to be in an almost uniform rectilinear motion in the analysis of Michelson –Morley (MM) experiment and that is the cause of the observed null result. As the earth has been in an almost uniform rectilinear motion for a very long time in its orbit around the sun, the rest frame of the earth can be considered as an absolute reference frame for all experiments that are done on earth. Therefore, the state of motion of the MM device should be changed in order to detect the expected fringe shift. The MM device should be accelerated to a velocity of 30Km/s relative to the earth to observe the expected 0.04 fringe shift. However, as such a high (change in) velocity is practically difficult to attain, the MM device can be accelerated to about 5Km/s relative to the earth, say by mounting it on a space shuttle, to observe a fringe shift corresponding to 5Km/s. Why did Sagnac’s and Michelson-Gale experiments not also show null results? Unlike Michelson-Morley’s interferometer, Sagnac interferometers continuously accelerate due to their rotation. Therefore, these devices are always in non steady state condition and hence are always in absolute motion and thus show the expected fringe shifts. Speed of light and dynamic absolute reference frame Inertial/ non-inertial source and observer An inertial source/observer is a source/observer that has been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time. All inertial sources/observers can be considered to be at absolute rest in space. Thus the absolute reference frame for an inertial source/observer is a reference frame in which it has been at rest for a long enough time. A non-inertial source/observer is not only a source/observer that is accelerating but also that has not been in a uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time. A non-inertial source/observer is considered to be in absolute motion in space. The absolute reference frame for a non-inertial source/observer is the reference frame in which the source/observer has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration. More accurately, the absolute reference frame for a body is the inertial reference frame in which the velocity of the body is the absolute velocity of the body because the absolute reference frame for the body changes continuously. ‘Inertial / non-inertial’ not only means absence or presence of acceleration, but also means that the body has /has not been in uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time . The speed of light is C ± V for all non- inertial observers and is equal to C for all inertial observers. All observers who have been in a uniform rectilinear motion for a long enough time (inertial observers) will measure the speed of light to be equal to C, irrespective of their velocity relative to the source. Non inertial observers will measure the speed of light to be C+V, where V is the absolute velocity of the observer. Note that V is not necessarily the velocity of the observer relative to the source, but the absolute velocity of the observer, which is the velocity of the observer relative to the inertial frame in which the observer has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration. The explanation for the absolute constancy of the speed of light C for all (inertial) observers has been presented in my previous post 'Relativity of Electromagnetic Fields'. The speed of light from an inertial source is isotropic and is equal to C in the absolute reference frame (i.e the rest frame of the source) when observed with inertial observers and is anisotropic for non-inertial sources. The anisotropy of the light from a non-inertial source is measured (observed) in the absolute frame, which is the reference frame in which the source has been at rest for a long enough time before its acceleration. Corrections: Paragraph 3: " Ether and emission theories fail to explain the MM null result ..." should be corrected as " Ether theories fail to explain the MM null result ..."

Elliptic orbits are only the solutions of those differential equations for conservation of energy and for conservation of angular momentum of a planet revolving around a sun. They are only a result of maths. If infinite number of orbits are possible, what determines a specific orbit? I think we agree that Newton's law of gravitation should predict a single orbit, for a given set of initial conditions. The new theory predicts a single orbit for a given set of initial conditions. Those differential equations are based on, at least, one fundamental mistake: the conservation laws applied only to the planet. The conservation laws should be applied to the sun-planet system (assuming external force on the system is absent) and this is possible only if we use a reference frame not fixed with the sun, and this reference frame should be an absolute reference frame. The orbits are non circular but not elliptic, according to the new theory.They are not symmetric.The orbit has smaller size on, say, the left side, and a bigger size on the right side (depending on the sense of rotation of the planet around the sun), when looking in the forward direction of the path of the sun in space. Someone might say " No, observations show that the orbits are elliptic". But observations depend on the theories. For example, if some deviation from elliptic shape has been observed, they say " departure from the exact elliptic shape may be because of the effect of other planets and or other galaxies? .... ". Newton's explanation was sufficient to satisfy the people at his time because they didn't even know the cause of revolution of planets before Newton's laws, let alone the cause of elliptic orbits. Actually all Newton did was only solve the differential equations for the conservation laws and say that any conic section is possible. However, no one has been able to interprete those solutions as they were/are not accurate, i.e elliptic orbits are difficult to interpret (they lead to new questions, as the ones mentioned below). Anyone, even anyone with little education, can challenge the existing explanation: then why is the sun at the left or at the right focal point of the ellipse (if the orbit is symmetric), or why is the perihilion point to the left or to the right, which specific ellipse, why a specific orientation of the 'ellipse' in space and so on. I am very clear about the new theory than Newton's explanation for 'elliptic' orbits and this is because Newton's explanation is incomplete, i.e it provokes other questions as above. I know, however, that the differential equations leading to elliptic orbits are based on a fundamental mistake: they are based on a reference frame fixed to and moving with the sun. It takes some time and effort to clearly and completely show the details on why a wrong theory is wrong. But I would like to work on a more promising new theory than try to figure out the details of why a fundamentally wrong theory is wrong, because of limitation of time and other resources. The new theory is : Newton's laws of motion and gravitation should be redefined with respect to an absolute reference frame.

Ok, correction: " a discrepancy" NOT "the discrepancy" It has been presented as a discrepancy in the new theory. How can a simple law of gravitation lead to a complex (non circular) shape of orbit? A simple law should lead to a simple orbital shape: circular. Yes, the only way of proving an idea (a theory) is with experiment. But, how do we select those ideas in our minds in the first place? Can we test all of the hundreds of ideas which happen in our minds with experiments? Intuition and logic are powerful tools to select a few sensible ideas to be tested experimentally out of thousands of speculations . If we observe nature behave counterintuitively, then the problem is with a limitation in our power of logical and intuitive thinking. Perhaps the explanation of those phenomena required discovery of new logic and new intuition. Intuitive and logical ideas are self evident. The failures with logical and intuitive thinking is just because we didn't think logically and intuitively enough. We simply made subtle mistakes in our thinking. There is no decisive explanation to the cause for 'elliptic' orbits. If people are easily satified with some adhoc explanations, then that is a problem. Science always progressed not because of people who were satisfied with existing explanations, but because of those who were not.Those people always have/had higher standards for the explanations they accept. How can one be satisfied with " time dilation" and " space contraction ". It is completely counterintuitive. Self contradiction. Well, one may consider "length contraction" and test it. Two bodies revolving about a common bary center? Conservation of energy and angular momentum? Conic sections? If an explanation existed on why the orbits are 'elliptic', someone would have posted it here in a single line. I will write the new explanation in a single line as follows: 'Elliptic' orbits and Perihilion advance are due to absolute motion of the solar system in space. The new theory can describle the exact mathematical expression of the orbit, why an 'elliptic' orbit takes a specific shape and orientation in space, why the perihilion point is to the left or to the right, what happens during acceleration, .... . "going to greath lengths " just means " make every possible effort " 1. Newton's law of gravitation, in its simplest form, predicts the simplest shape of orbit: circular. No fundamental explanation exists so far on why the orbits are elliptic, the exact shape (mathematical expression) of the orbit , why a specific orientation of the 'ellipse' in space, ... 2. The theory proposed in my previous post doesn't imply an 'elliptic' orbit. The orbits are not elliptic.The exact shape is known after solving the differential equations. A qualitative analysis showed that the orbit will have bigger radius on one side (say left side) than on the opposite (right) side. So the new theory answers the questions in (1). The orientation of the perihelion and aphelion points is such that the line connecting them is always perpendicular to the path of the sun in space. I just claimed that the new theory is logically consistent and can explain two phenomena : 'elliptic' orbits and perihelion advance. Theories should be compared both with respect to their logical consistency and validity and with respect to agreement with observations. Experimental evidences should be reconsidered if some problem in the logical consistency or validity or satisfiability of the theory is discovered or if a better theory is discovered. Elliptic orbits are not compatible with the simple Newton's law of gravitation we know. They are compatible with a 'transformed' or 'distorted' form the law. I did not insist that the the orbits are circular. I proposed an explanation for why they are not circular. Newton and Kepler knew the orbits were 'elliptic', but did not explain why.Why a specific 'ellipse'? While formulating his simple law of gravitation, Newton had to ignore the 'imperfections' of the orbit shapes to simplify the problem.

The main idea here is that we should go to great lengths to test our laws in physics, 1. against nature. 2. against intuition and logic We have one or both of two alternatives 1. To rigorously check our laws of physics against nature AND/OR 2. Our laws of physics should be based on sound logical consistency. This requirement should be even more tight if we can't test our theories in the laboratory or if there is some (apparent) discrepancy between a law of physics and actual observations. So physicists should either have been able to explain 'elliptic' orbits with (extreme) logical consistency or should have 'explored' the universe to find at least one solar system in which Newton's law of gravitation was observed exactly: circular orbits. Ideally, the problem of reference frames that accompanied Newton's laws should not have been tolerated and Newton's laws should not have been accepted as complete. If this was done, the problem of reference frames would have been solved much earlier. The complete discussion is found on the attached PdF. How Newton should have scifor.pdf

In the previous two posts on Special and General Theories of Relativity of Electromagnetic Fields, an alternative, more intuitive and logically consistent explanation for the absolute constancy of the speed of light has been presented, and a possibility of the new theory to explain those evidences and experiments that are claimed as confirmation of Einstein's relativity has been given. We know that the whole theory of Einstein's relativity is based on the two postulates. The second postulate (the light speed postulate) has already been divorced from Einstein's relativity. This post is about the first postulate. In this paper, the incorrectness of Galileo's invariance principle will be presented by the two evidences: non circular planetary orbit and Mercury perihilion advance. Therefore,as Galileo's relativity is incorrect, Einstein's relativity is also wrong. Thus the two foundations of Einstein's theory of relativity pass away. Open the attached PdF. Elliptic orbits as evidence for absolute motion final.pdf Elliptic orbits as evidence for absolute motion final.pdf

I have thought about relativity only at a basic and intuitive level. I didn’t make any deep study of relativity, but I would only like to express my difficulty and confusion to understand relativity at an intuitive level as follows. Yes, relativity has problems. Relativity is not a kind of a theory you can declare as correct or wrong. It is counter intuitive. I think there can be no valid experiment that can prove or disprove relativity.I can’t understand what is meant by ‘space contracts’, ‘time dilates’. Space and time define everything in the universe: the laws, the objects, the phenomena …even ourselves (the observers). What defines space and time themselves? Can space and time ‘define themselves’? Suppose that you and another observer are at rest relative to each other. And there is a stick at rest relative to both of you. You started moving with some constant velocity (comparable with C) relative to the other observer (and relative to the stick). Then you observed that stick while moving. It appeared shorter to you. Now how do you explain this phenomena? 1. It is just due to finite speed of light. In this case length shortening is only an illusion. OR 2. Special relativity. ‘Space contracts, time dilates’. If space contracted, not only will the stick become ‘shorter’, but also the observer (his eyes, his brain, … everything) . If his retina didn’t contract, he would have detected the change. But his retina gets contracted proportionally. So, would he detect contraction of stick? No. He would perceive the stick as before. But we know that this is not the case. In order to detect a change, there should be something that doesn’t change. Everything including the observer changes. Space and time define everything in the universe, and if space and time got ‘contracted’ or ‘dilated’, no one, no instrument would detect that. Our consciousness??? Or, does space contraction not affect an observer? The same is to time dilation. Who or what can detect time dilation? The moving observer? The stationary observer? No, because they are defined with space and time themselves as any object and therefore they are ‘contracted’ and ‘time dilated’ themselves. The whole of our biological system would change so that we wouldn’t be able to detect time dilation. Again, in order to detect a change there should be something that doesn’t change. An atomic clock? No, because it would also change. Can there be any valid experiment then that can prove or disprove Einstein’s relativity? In special relativity, it is said that ‘the space of the moving observer’ contracts as observed by the stationary observer. If two observers A and B are in relative uniform/rectilinear motion, ‘the space of B’ contracts (appears to?) as observed by A and the ‘space of A’ contracts as observed by B. So A and B have ‘their own’ different spaces?! Then each observer would have to ’switch’ between the two spaces: one contracted, the other not contracted ????? When A looks at objects that are at rest relative to him, he looks in the non contracted space? When he has to look at the moving observer, he switches to the contracted space? But we know that space is one. If space starts to contract because observer B has suddenly started moving, then observer A would also contract and not be able to detect ‘space contraction'. The third explanation: Lorentz transformationIs it length, and not space that contracts? This is much better theory than Einstein’s relativity because it is possible to prove or disprove it. But Lorentz transformation is not real. I will not go into the detail of this now. Therefore, of the three, we take the most straightforward explanation: illusion. I would like an intuitive theory, whether it is correct or wrong, and not a counterintuitive theory at all. The new theory is intuitive. It is much easier to understand and even to think of EM fields contracting and expanding than space itself contracting. An EM wave contracts relative to space, relative to what does space itself contract? The delay of events is relative to time, relative to what does time itself dilate? Time to measure time? Space to measure space? The new theory is logically consistent If I can’t understand relativity at this level, I don’t want to go any further with it. I am ready to receive any comments on the above and ready to learn what others think.

The previously proposed new theory of Relativity of EM Fields assumed a constant speed of an observer relative to the light source. Now this theory can well be called Special Relativity of EM fields. As I looked closely into the new theory, I was disappointed at first when I discovered that the theory implied a variation of the speed of light for an observer in accelerating motion relative to the source. The implication of the theory seemed to contradict with the foundation of the theory. After some thought I found out that this variation of C to be vitally important because this gives the theory the potential to explain the results of those experiments that are claimed as evidences supporting Einstein’s relativity theories. This theory can be called General Relativity of EM fields. It was only later that it happened to me that the previous theory (constant observer-source relative speed) was analogous with Einstein’s special relativity and the latter one (accelerating observer-source relative motion) was analogous with Einstein’s general relativity. In both Einstein’s general relativity and the new General Relativity of EM Fields, there is no limit on the speed of light! The three experiments (evidences) which might be explained by the new theory of Relativity of EM Fields are: Ives – Stilwell Experiment ‘GPS correction’ Hafele and Keating Experiment There is a common factor in all these experiments: acceleration. Of the three above, however, one report in the Hafele and Keating Experiment may not be explained by the new theory. The ‘time delay’ measurements during the flight might be explained by the new theory, but the report that the time delay persisted after the flight may not be explained by the new theory. However, the General theory of Relativity of EM waves has to be worked out fully quantitatively to clarify and test its claims. In any case, one thing seems certain: the speed of light varies with the acceleration of the observer relative to the source. For a more detail preliminary discussions : google viXra:1303.0063

This theory is about the foundation of relativity. Despite its development to a whole wide and deep scientific stream today, the whole theory of relativity started and was (is) based on a few simple axioms and thought experiments and logic. Therefore, if one can give better alternatives at this foundational level, the original theory should be reconsidered, despite everything that has been built on it later on. Why are there so many people not accepting relativity today? It is the 'responsibility' of the theory to convince everyone. People should be compelled to accept a theory only by its beauty.Were there as many people who rejected Newton's and other classical scientist's theories? Any theory may appear to be counterintuitive initially. But I believe that any true theory of nature should ultimately be understandable intuitively. Relativity remains counterintuitive one hundred years after its initial inception. I think relativity might prove not to be a true theory of nature one day and be relevant only when discussing about the genius of Einstein, not nature. The theory proposed in this topic is so simple and self evident and compelling. Any comments about its correctness and consistency are welcome. The content of this paper can be summarized as: There is a subtle mistake in the statement of the light speed paradox: How can two observers moving relative to each other observe the same speed of the same light beam? The hidden fallacy here is the assumption that the two observers observe the same form of the light beam. The two observers observe different forms of the same light beam. Of course Doppler effect is the most familiar phenomena, but its significance in solving the light speed paradox hasn't been understood. An observer moving towards a light source will not observe the same form of the light beam that a stationary observer is observing. An observer moving towards a light source will observe a spatially compressed (Doppler shifted) form of the wave the stationary observer is observing. This is the key, yet most familiar, idea to solve the light speed paradox. An observer moving towards (or away from) a light source will not observe a point on the Doppler shifted wave earlier (later) than the stationary observer observes the corresponding point on the non-Doppler-shifted wave! Both observers observe the corresponding points on 'their' respective waves simultaneously! After some simple analysis, this leads to: The light beam as observed by the moving observer appears to move with speed less (more) than C relative to its source by the same amount of the velocity V of the observer so that the relative velocity between the light beam and the observer is always equal to C! Therefore, the relative motion between a light source and an observer not only results in an apparent (Doppler) shift of frequency (wavelength) but also in an apparent change in the velocity of the light beam relative to its source. Doppler shift is always accompanied by an apparent shift in the velocity of the light beam relative to its source. For the detail discussion: http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0065v3.pdf

The whole story of relativity begins with a paradox on the speed of light: relative to what is the speed of light constant? Einstein correctly solved this postulate by his light postulate: the speed of light must be the same to all observers. However, the light postulate provokes another immediate question: how can two observers in relative motion measure the same speed of the same light beam? At his point, Einstein made a huge stride: space and time must be relative. And an even more radical proposition: not only space and time but also mass must be relative. Now it is this huge 'jump' that was unnecessary. This radical proposition has created many more paradoxes than it solved during the last century. The absolute constancy of the speed of light could be explained by a much better, simpler, intuitive theory: Relativity of electromagnetic waves. We have known about Doppler effect for more than one and a half century. The familar Doppler effect is the most striking phenomena supporting this view: relativity of EM fields. The new theory is based on two postulates: 1. The absolute constancy of the speed of light 2. Doppler effect If we accept both these postulates, the newly proposed theory of relativity of EM fields becomes self evident. This theory (assuming it proves to be correct) ends the marriage between the light postulate and special relativity, which has lasted for more than a century, and hence disarming Einstein's relativity. We know that the light postulate has been the single crucial 'part' of relativity which has made attack on relativity theory almost impossible, due to its firm experimental foundation. Now, the experimental confirmation of the absolute constancy of the speed of light can no more be taken as evidence for special relativity. The complete discussion can be found at: http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0065v2.pdf