OVERVIEW
1. Einstein’s belief
2. Relativists and wave theorists
3. Medium rejected
4. Sense of unease
5. Unexplained observations
6. Sky at night
7. Michelson and Morley Experiment
8. Without a medium
9. With a medium
10. All waves require a medium
11. Inconsistent
12. Relativistic Addition of Velocities
13. Vacuum medium
14. Medium moves with heavy bodies
15. Observing the universe
16. Causality
17. Motional problems
18. Propagation Time Asymmetry
19. Einstein’s Inertial Frame
20. Lorentz fundamental
21. PTA dominates
22. Rectangular axes
23. Oblique axes
24. Ether-less relativity
25. Einstein’s oversight
26. Ether-less claims
27. Medium based SR
28. Two aspects of SR
29. Moving media
30. Two types of motion and frame
1. EINSTEIN’S BELIEF
Einstein believed there was no difference between a stationary and constantly moving (inertial) frame. Or between colliding systems, or motion between a magnet and an attracting metal plate, any could be considered as moving. These apparently indistinguishable motions helped convince Einstein that only inertial frames and relative motion between systems were meaningful. He concluded therefore, that there is no need for a propagation medium (ether). However, relative motion between a source (action or event) and an observer (detector), without a medium, has no meaning in wave theory or the mass-less particle equivalent.
2. RELATIVISTS AND WAVE THEORISTS
Relativists (usually astrophysicists) have been content to accept Einstein’s view that there is no need for a propagation medium (ether) to propagate EM waves. They use Einstein’s Special Relativity (1905) (SR) and General Relativity (GR) (1915) and predict measured results. They see no reason to believe that SR and GR are in error in any way. Whereas, wave theorists find Einstein’s ether-less claims as irrational (non causal).
There is a fundamental requirement, confirmed by measurement, that all waves need a propagation medium to propagate and to make their wave equation causal (predictable). The EM wave equation can be readily derived and solved using the classical medium based wave equation modified by the Lorentz Transform (LT) (1889), demonstrating the medium’s presence and necessity. Not recognizing the medium, Einstein’s ether-less aspect of SR is unable to satisfy the general wave equation, inabling (not allowing) ether-less SR to distinguish between source and observer motion.
3. MEDIUM REJECTED
Although Maxwell established the EM medium in 1865, the propagation medium’s popularity lost ground in the early 1920’s through: i) The Michelson and Morley Experiment (MMX) (1887) revealing no motional effects. ii) Bradley’s (1725) stellar aberration appearing to discredit the medium. iii) Failing to distinguish between measured differences between sources and observers in motion. iv) Believing that the medium based Lorentz transform predictions could support Einstein’s ether-less relativity. v) Over estimating the relativistic and gravitational effects, which are small compared with the classical motional effect, at Earth speeds, gravitational strengths and short integration times.
It appears that all well established experiments attributed to relativistic and ether-less effects: MMX, Bradley, Sagnac (1913), Michelson and Gale (M&G) (1925), Saburi et al (1976), Reasenburg et al (1979) and GPS (1992), are in fact predicted by classical medium based Propagation Time Asymmetry (PTA), not by Einstein’s ether-less Propagation Time Symmetry (PTS). M&G, which was regarded as the final demise of medium based theories, is now shown to be medium based.
4. SENSE OF UNEASE
After a century of non causal ether-less relativity, there will be, initially, a reluctance to accept the propagation medium and abandon Einstein’s ether-less concept of relativity. Einstein was convinced that there was no propagation medium. However his thought experiments included ether-less predictions, such as time travel and no absolute time and space, neither of which can be measured. Einstein’s reluctance to accept the medium has caused considerable problems that have arisen through the medium’s rejection, and numerous accurate predictions based on the medium’s presence. Some of us, who have read Einstein’s theory of relativity or studied it in some detail, have been left with a sense of unease. Some aspects of the theory appear to be against one’s intuition, requiring a leap of faith to suppress a disturbing feeling that the physics is not quite right.
5. UNEXPLAINED OBSERVATIONS
There should be no obvious unanswered questions; such as how does light propagate, or how does one solve the wave equation for propagating waves, without a propagation medium? Without a medium, there is no physical mechanism to explain how the simple Doppler (1842) effect occurs. How a moving more dense medium than a vacuum can convect light. How an impulsive wave is formed in Cerenkov (1934) radiation. How two systems can move apart physically, greater than the speed of light, but not relative to each other. Or distinguish between light propagation on Earth, around the Earth or through the Solar System and beyond. Finally, Einstein’s invariant inertial frame that encouraged his ether-less beliefs, is not in accord with measured medium based predictions.
6. SKY AT NIGHT
Challenges to Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) (1905) have come and gone. Through dogged defense of the status quo we are still managing to get by with the same theory. Viewing the sky at night it is difficult to imagine that the universe is not continuous and absolute, i.e. it is not one piece of spatial fabric. Einstein concluded just that, implying that space is a patch-work of autonomous regions of relativity. Having no propagation medium, Einstein assumed that there was no absolute time and space. His belief was based mainly on the invariance of the MMX.
7. MICHELSON AND MORLEY EXPERIMENT
The MMX (1887) showed that light on Earth propagated exactly the same as if the Earth was stationary. The propagation time was the same in and against the direction of the Earth moving through space at high speed. For classical waves the time should have been asymmetrical, take longer upstream than down. This was interpreted through Einstein’s inertial frame as implying that there was no propagation medium. The establishment, without rigorous proof, also concluded that the universe was without a medium. They, like Einstein, believed they could see the Emperor’s new clothes. However, the clothes in retrospect appear to be quite conventional after all. The MMX null result is now shown quite naturally to be based on a medium moving with the Earth.
8. WITHOUT A MEDIUM
Einstein, in his concept of relativity, believed that only relative motion between space ships was meaningful. Ships could travel notionally at any speed without detection, providing there was no relative velocity between them. This is not a satisfactory situation, how could their actual speeds be measured? According to Einstein’s relativity, either ship could be considered to be moving and the other stationary. Either set of astronauts could be considered to age less than those on the other ship. Amazingly, against all logic, both situations were considered possible, even at the same time, which is physically impossible (non causal) in the real world.
9. WITH A MEDIUM
Einstein claimed that the situation could not be resolved until one of the ships changed speed or direction. But what would have been the situation immediately before the ships changed course? What would have happened if the ships had never changed course? These questions only arise through not accepting the medium’s presence. Restoring the medium allows these questions to be answered naturally. Accepting the medium’s presence ensures finite and definitive velocities relative to the medium, removing all ambiguity. The two ships could, for example, approach each other at speeds just below the speed of light, their total speed relative to the medium being almost twice that of light. But relative to each other, through the relativistic addition of velocities, their speed would always appear to be below that of light.
10. ALL WAVES REQUIRE A MEDIUM
To transmit the steady field, its disturbances (waves) and make the predictions causal (solutions of the motional wave equation), a medium is essential. The medium is not a mathematical artifact that can be removed, as Einstein believed. All observed motional effects are caused through the interaction of the moving system with the propagation medium. The medium determines the wave characteristics, including the wave propagation speed.
EM waves are no exception; their electrical medium’s inertia and compressibility are finite giving a finite speed. If there was no medium its propagation speed would be infinite, which is not the case. Apart from projectiles, there is no other known way of transmitting information and energy across space, unless one believes in some kind of metaphysical method, for which there appears to be no evidence. Historic lethargy has prevented the medium’s acceptance for over a hundred years. A similar denial greeted Galileo’s insistence that the Earth is not the center of the universe, four hundred years ago.
11. INCONSISTENT
Einstein’s SR is not consistent with classical wave theory. It implies both ether-less and medium based predictions, which are contradictory. The main problem is that EM waves (light) are supposed to propagate without a medium. Having no medium is irrational, it’s against fundamental (causal) physics. This is like water waves without water, or sound waves without air, there is nothing special regarding EM waves. It is established that the medium exists and restoring its presence removes all inconsistencies. It can be shown that Einstein, who tried to convince us of the medium’s non existence, actually used a medium in his own field equations, allowing causal predictions to be made, including many of the measured results we are familiar with today. But of course this negates Einstein’s own ether-less aspect of relativity.
12. RELATIVISTIC ADDITION OF VELOCITIES
The two space ship velocity interpretations are explained quite legitimately through the medium based Relativistic Addition of Velocities (RAV). Each ship retains its individual velocity relative to the medium, which determines its rate of aging, according to Lorentz. This is the medium at work producing completely rational (predictable) effects. The only non intuitive part of the process is the relativistic addition, which is perfectly rational mathematically, being derived directly from the medium based Lorentz transform. Here the system and light speed is added relativistically, making the light speed ‘c’ invariant. This is because time and space in the moving frame shrink by exactly the same ratio maintaining its speed. The light speed in the medium, or to a moving observer, then remains unchanged.
13. VACUUM MEDIUM
A vacuum medium, without gravitational matter, is not empty space. It has Maxwell’s (1865) permeability (electrical inertia) and permittivity (electrical stiffness) propagating (bouncing) electrical disturbances through the medium. It transmits steady electric fields, steady difference electric fields and unsteady electromagnetic fields. These are generated, for example, from electrons jumping orbits in atoms and molecules, radiating light or mass-less photons. Photons, with no rest mass are equivalent to discrete energy bursts of light, another way of representing wave propagation. Photons require a medium just the same as waves and travel at the speed of light relative to the medium.
14. MEDIUM MOVES WITH HEAVY BODIES
The medium is generally at rest in space. However, it is attracted to, and through its non-ridged structure moves with gravitational bodies (planets). Here the medium surrounds and orbits with the body within its Gravitational Field of Dominance (GFOD). Stellar aberration, described by Bradley (1725), which was believed would be affected by the medium surrounding and orbiting with the Earth is shown not to be the case. The star light propagating in the medium, ‘at rest in space’, passes through the orbiting medium, forming the aberration angle in an observing telescope on Earth. This is an actual angle embedded in the medium.
It is not a resolved angle between the Earth’s motion and the speed of light that would have resulted if there had been no medium. Filling the telescope with an obvious medium (water), does not affect the stellar angle, confirming the medium’s presence. The medium forms a smooth transition (ray bending), between the moving and stationary situations. NR therefore explains the Michelson and Morley Experiment (1887) (medium moves with the Earth), Bradley’s (1725) stellar aberration, (telescope moves relative to star light propagating in the stationary medium) and Michelson and Gale’s (1925) boundary layer (medium on the Earth’s surface moves relative to the surrounding stationary medium), supporting the legitimacy of the entrainment model.
15. OBSERVING THE UNIVERSE
It is self evident that to understand the physics of the universe requires observations, which in turn require light. Observations therefore depend on EM waves and the medium that transmits them. They also depend on motion of the source and observer relative to the medium. Basically, there is nothing extraordinary regarding EM waves, they behave and give similar causal properties as regular classical waves. Familiar wave motions are water waves spreading out from a stone thrown in a pond, waves moving on the surface of the sea or pounding the beaches. They all require a medium to be causal (predictable).
16. CAUSALITY
In the case of acoustic waves, for example, the air becomes the mediums the medium, transmitting sound energy (speech or music) from its source transmitting sound from its source to the listener. This information is predicted through the medium by solving the classical Navier-Stokes Equations (NSE’s). Its solution is causal (the cause must occur before the effect), it is valid for all kinds of wave motion. In the case of EM waves, there is no difference from classical waves, apart from the medium based Maxwell’s Equations (ME’s) (1865) and the Lorentz Transform (LT) (1899) replacing NSE’s. These EM equations predict events (light) propagating through the EM medium, eventually seen by an observer. For stationary EM sources and observers there is no confusion, an EM medium is naturally accepted to solve the wave equation and make the observations causal.
17. MOTIONAL PROBLEMS
However, problems occur when motion is considered. Suddenly, when systems were set in motion, Einstein believed, without proof or robust scientific reasoning, that EM waves were somehow unique, and that a medium was no longer required. This of course is inconsistent and irrational, wave propagation without a propagation medium cannot happen, it is a contra-diction. For media movement, relative to a fixed source and observer, or vice versa, the upstream and downstream wave propagation times will become asymmetrical and vary with motion relative to the medium. There is no other rational outcome, it is determined by the causal solution of its wave equation, using a propagation medium
18. PROPAGATION TIME ASYMMETRY (PTA)
If the water speed of a river, or a shallow stream on the beach, equals the surface wave speed, the waves propagating upstream will stand still relative to their surroundings, giving an infinite upstream and half the downstream propagation time. This simple concept of Propagation Time Asymmetry (PTA) and its variance, applies generally to all kinds of waves. According to fundamental physics there is no wave type that does not satisfy causality and create PTA, including EM waves. This asymmetry, which is indicative of causality, is absent in Einstein’s inertial frame.
19. EINSTEIN’S INERTIAL FRAME
If an EM system (source and observer of fixed separation) moves at constant speed, relative to the medium, it does not affect the observations. But it does result in PTA according to Lorentz. This variance cannot be accounted for by the ether-less invariant Einstein Inertial Frame (EIF). Einstein’s assumption that there is absolutely no difference between a stationary and constantly moving frame is untenable. It is true that the mechanics, propagation speed and ME’s are invariant, but the PTA remains variant in the moving frame. Without the medium, EIF cannot propagate waves, it cannot be a solution of the wave equation, it is non-causal.
20. LORENTZ FUNDAMENTAL
Lorentz’s motional rectangular co-ordinate axes transform (LT) is the basic theory for systems in motion. It gives measured predictions, based on motion with respect to Maxwell’s medium, not relative motion between systems, as Einstein believed. Its predictions are based on the motional solution of the medium based EM wave equation. The effects are therefore predictable (causal). They include the medium based classical PTA, with Doppler (1842) frequency and Sagnac’s (1913) time domain asymmetry. In addition to PTA there is the modifying Lorentz’s time and space contraction (LC) by high speed system motion relative to the medium. Time and space of the medium do not change, it’s the time and structure of physical objects (atoms and molecules) that contract (not dilate) passing through the medium.
21. PTA DOMINATES
Relativists, not accepting the medium’s presence, attempt to use relativistic arguments to try to explain basic EM motional effects. However, relativistic effects at Earth speeds and short measurement periods are small compared to the instantaneous classical PTA. Michelson and Morley (1887), Sagnac (1913), Michelson and Gale (1925), Saburi et al (1976) and GPS (1992) are all basically explained using only the medium based classical PTA. The only major difference between classical and EM theories is Lorentz’s contraction in the direction of motion at high speed. Both theories exhibit the classical medium based PTA, in the moving frame, it is the vital (dominant) part of any causal motional wave theory.
22. RECTANGULAR AXES
Relativists attempt to argue that no propagation medium exists or indeed is required. They interpret Minkowski’s (1908) rectangular axes space-time four vector analysis, which plots moving systems in space and time, as requiring no medium. However, the vertical and horizontal axes of the space-time diagram use Lorentz’s rectangular axes medium based transform, representing time and space respectively, normalized against the speed of light. The velocity of light then becomes a 45 degree gradient. This is just a mathematical convenience of representing time and space. There is no mechanism or physical justification to remove the medium.
23. OBLIQUE AXES
In an effort to remove the effect of the medium and support Einstein’s concept of relative motion, Lorentz’s medium based rectangular axes transform can be replaced by oblique axes, according to Born (1924). These axes were an attempt, using Minkowski’s space-time, to simulate simultaneity (propagation time symmetry upstream and down) and reciprocity (interchanging sources and observers made no difference to the observations). However, these ether-less properties, where the medium’s absence is argued using medium based concepts (circular arguments), are non causal, they are not a solution of the wave equation. They imply time travel and no absolute time and space, neither of which have been measured.
24. ETHER-LESS RELATIVITY
Credibility is raised by the fact that no one has ever verified Einstein’s ether-less relativity, nor established the redundancy of the propagation medium. Researchers claiming to have verified ether-less aspects of SR have usually verified the medium based Lorentz Transform (LT). They make no attempt to explain how the observations are transmitted without a medium. Also, MEs, LT and Relativistic Addition of Velocities (RAV) are all medium based, using rectangular axes transforms. Whereas, an oblique axes transform, representing ether-less simulations, resulting in paradoxes and uncertainties, should not have been taken seriously to represent reality. They are non causal mathematical simulations, with no apparent physical or experimental evidence to support them.
25. EINSTEIN’S OVERSIGHT
Einstein’s belief in his invariant, ether-less, inertial frame to observe motional properties is not appropriate. Causal predictions require a medium to solve the wave equation and propagate waves. Propagation defined through the causal solution of the wave equation must always be relative to the medium, not relative to the moving frame, as Einstein believed. The velocity of light is always with respect to the medium, even when there is system motion relative to the medium. The velocity of light remains invariant in the moving frame only because time and space shrink by exactly the same ratio through motion with respect to the medium. The propagation is relative to the preferred reference frame (medium), where PTA is created.
26. ETHER-LESS CLAIMS
Einstein’s assumption, that there was no propagation medium, is not supported by any known data. Without the medium, PTA is not possible and the EM wave equation cannot be solved. Without a solution, measured events cannot be predicted. They are non causal, the effect (observed event) could occur before the cause (source event), which cannot happen in reality. Einstein based his ether-less predictions on relative motion between systems without any physical argument or justification. This resulted in his ether-less claims: i) Only relative motion between systems can be detected. ii) No distinction between a stationary and a constantly moving frame can be made. iii) The medium is redundant. iv) Time travel is possible and v) there is no absolute time and space. All these claims are non causal (false). Einstein’s ether-less inertial frame responsible for their beliefs, cannot predict measured observations. It is Lorentz’s medium based optical frame that correctly predicts the measured events, using a preferred frame of reference.
27. MEDIUM BASED SR
However, Einstein’s SR does predict measured observations. They are based on a propagation medium. Although Einstein denied the existence of the propagation medium, with his non causal ether-less predictions, it is easily confirmed from inspection of his motional electrodynamics field equations that he used a medium to obtain and solve the wave equation. His field equations use Maxwell’s and Lorentz’s medium based rectangular axes motional transform, which results in the measured predictions. The same motional properties can be obtained directly from the medium based classical wave equation by simply including Lorentz’s time and space contraction through motion, relative to medium, independent of SR.
28. TWO ASPECTS OF SR
Einstein’s SR is therefore not consistent, it has two contradictory aspects. One is concerned with time and space contraction of structures passing through the medium. This, leads to Einstein’s famous energy equation, E=mc2 etc., which results directly from the medium based LT. This aspect is not in doubt; it has carried ‘relativity’ through into the modern age of physics. The second aspect involves rejecting the medium in support of Einstein’s relative motion. This automatically makes the essential emission and reception positions and propagation paths indeterminate. It also implies isolated regions of relativity with no continuity and no absolute time and space. This is the ether-less aspect of SR that is not a solution of the wave equation, it is non causal and therefore cannot be measured.
29. MOVING MEDIA
Einstein’s ether-less relativity cannot distinguish between: a) Propagation in a medium at rest in space. This is supported by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, detected by Penzias & Wilson (1965). It is also verified through energy collection increase by motion relative to the CMB radiation, measured by COBE (1992). b) Propagation in an Earth centered frame i.e. propagation on Earth to be independent of its orbital speed around the Sun. This is supported by MMX (1887), Sagnac (1913) and Michelson & Gale (1925). Also c) propagation in a heliocentric frame i.e. propagation through the Solar System to be independent of its motion through the universe, according to Reasenburg et al (1979). These situations can be explained only if the medium exists, is at rest generally, moves with the Earth locally, and with the Sun and Solar System for inter-solar planetary propagation. Relativists, not believing in a medium, have to make these reference frame transforms without any authority (physical justification).
30. TWO TYPES OF MOTION AND FRAME
There are two types of motion. One is where systems move with respect to the medium, causing PTA, including propagation differences between source and observer motion with respect to the medium. The other is where there is no relative motion between the system and medium i.e. no PTA, as in a system and medium at rest in space, or moving with gravitational bodies. Without recognition of the propagation medium, Einstein could not distinguish between these types of motion. Finally, confusion in relativity occurs through there being two types of reference frame: Einstein Inertial Frame (EIF), where the mechanics and the speed of light are invariant, which without a medium is incapable of transmitting observations. And a variant Lorentzian Propagation Frame (LPF) containing the additional effect of the medium and its waves, which make the observations possible, according to Lorentz.