The absolute constancy of the speed of light doesn’t require relativity of space and time.

[lidal]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Can you show how this produces the relativistic corrections required for GPS to work?

 

And you know, I assume, that electromagnetism is a relativistic theory?

[Didymus]

I assume this person is indicating that the math is correct, but a simpler explanation exists for how that math functions. Instead of using those numbers to explain a lag in space and time, perhaps this is an equal lag in another, simpler, variable.

[Klaynos]

The explantion comes from what the maths describes. The maths is the model the words people use are there to try and help us get our heads around it, the maths came first.

 

I fail t see how thw lorentz equations can still be used in an absolute space time...

[lidal]

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

[swansont]

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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.

Then come up with a theory that does a better job of agreeing with experiment. Does relativity fail to do this? What is the improvement that your thesis provides?

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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.

No, appeal to popularity is in fact a logical fallacy. And beauty means nothing if the theory doesn't agree with experiment

 

"The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" Thomas Henry Huxley

 

 

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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.

That's your belief, not a fact. It's also argument from personal incredulity; you're assessing the truth of a theory based on your (in)ability to intuitively understand it.

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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.

 

What tests has relativity failed?

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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.

Same/different "form" of a light beam? What does that mean? Is there some difference in detecting a photon from a moving vs stationary source?

lidal, on 03 Mar 2013 - 08:38, said:

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!

What if you observe with transverse motion? Then there can be no question of the first-order Doppler shift.