Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein’s Relativity
• Abstract • Links • Reviews • Discussion

A Logical Extension of Special Relativity

Conrad Ranzan
2010-2012

Contents:

1. Abstract & Links
2. Reviews
3. Review with Author's Response
4. Supplementary Discussion
5. Summary Table

"What historians of science will find is that Einstein essentially arrived at a valid formalism from a wrong assumption.
Einstein wrongly believed that you cannot postulate the existence of a preferred frame-of-reference and at the same time postulate a constant speed of light for all observers." –CR

1. Abstract & Links

Abstract: Several loopholes in the logic structure of Einstein’s special relativity (ESR) are detailed. The exploitation of the loopholes leads to what is being called Extended relativity (also referred to as DSSU* Extended relativity). The Extended Lorentz transformations are presented; as well as the Extended relativity equations for time, length, momentum, mass, and kinetic energy. The optical interferometer experiments of Michelson & Morley and of Miller are analyzed and discussed. The significance of the difference between the vacuum-mode and gas-mode interferometer experiments is emphasized. While one experiment mode is consistent with a key hypothesis of Einstein; the other mode exposes a serious flaw. The repeated discovery of light-speed anisotropy, also referred to as the detection of absolute motion, exposes the inadequacy and incompleteness of the Einstein postulates. Essentially, the present Paper charts a course by which relativity theory can be made more inclusive and conform to the existence and detectability of ‘absolute’ motion.

* DSSU is the acronym for Dynamic Steady State Universe. It is a model based on the premise that all things are processes.

Keywords: Special relativity; DSSU extended relativity; relative motion; absolute motion; preferred frame; aether space; Lorentz transformation; lightspeed anisotropy; Dynamic Steady State Universe.

Extrait: Deux échappatoires dans la structure logique de la relativité spéciale d'Einstein (ESR) sont détaillées. L'exploitation des échappatoires mène à ce qui s'appelle la relativité Prolongée (également désignée sous le nom de la relativité-prolongée de DSSU*). Les transformations prolongées de Lorentz sont présentées; aussi bien que les équations de la relativité prolongée pendant le temps, la longueur, le moment, la masse, et l'énergie cinétique. Les expériences optiques d'interféromètre de Michelson & Morley et de Miller sont analysées et discutées. La signification de la différence entre le mode-vide et le mode-gaz des expériences d'interféromètre est soulignée. Tandis qu'un mode d'expérience est compatible avec une hypothèse principale d'Einstein; l'autre mode expose un défaut sérieux. La découverte répétée de l'anisotropie de lumière-vitesse, également désignée sous le nom de la détection du mouvement absolu, expose l'insuffisance et l'imperfection des postulats d'Einstein. Essentiellement, le papier présent dresse un cours par lequel la théorie de la relativité peut être rendue plus incluse et conforme à l'existence et à la détectabilité du mouvement 'absolu`.

* DSSU est l'acronyme pour l'univers équilibré dynamique. C'est un modèle basé sur l’idée que toutes les choses sont des processus.

Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein's Relativity (Preprint of the article published in Physics Essays Journal (2012 Sept); © 2012 copyright publisher PEP). Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication)

Citation: C. Ranzan, "Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein's Relativity,"
Physics Essays Vol.25, No.3, pp327-346 (2012 Sept). Abstract

Terminology note: The justification of the term “Extended relativity” rests, in large part, on the theory’s ability to extend/expand the speed of light postulate so that it accounts for (i) the intrinsic speed of light in its conducting medium; (ii) Einstein’s lightspeed invariance in accordance with certain experiments; and (iii) theory-predicted lightspeed variance in accordance with other experiments. As presented in the article:

· The explanation of the intrinsic speed of light involves the mechanism of light conduction by the space medium —aether.

· The explanation of lightspeed constancy, for all uniformly moving observers, involves the two-way-light-path method of measuring lightpulses.

· The explanation of lightspeed non-constancy involves a necessary feature imposed by the existence of a light-conducting aether. The presence of this luminiferous medium requires that the speed of propagation is dependent on the aether-imposed intrinsic value (300,000 km/s) plus the motion of the aether itself. In other words, the one-way-light-path measure of the speed of lightpulses may vary.

2. Reviews

"Let me congratulate you for yet another outstanding paper. 'Loopholes' is a winner. I read it through and found it to be thoughtfully and beautifully rendered. It's no easy task to take on Einstein's [oversight] but you do this without destroying Relativity Theory ---you simply extend Special Relativity by proving the DSSU aether flow as being absolute and dynamic ... in this process of extending Special Relativity you are laying the groundwork for your next paper. I love how you went about developing the powerful irrefutable Michelson-Morley, Miller, and Bradley evidence. You didn't miss a beat either ---by extending the Lorentz transformations to back this up and strengthen your case. Your figure illustrations, comparative tables, and flowcharts, bolster your text and thankfully were easy to understand. The material you covered on 'length contraction', 'speed of light relative to aether flow and velocity measurements' are nicely presented. As tough as math is for me I came away from reading this paper both enlightened and enthused and gained a new appreciation for equations regardless of being unable to handle the unfamiliar symbol nomenclature and algebra. I believe having recently read Mario Livio's book on Symmetry^[1] helped me to appreciate and trust the symmetry that your back-up equations reveal. I will read and study this paper again and again ... "

–Roger Ferragallo (California, 2010 Feb 8)

[Note: Roger has perused more books on cosmology and cosmology related topics than even I have! –CR]

Reference

^ Mario Livio, The Equation that Couldn't be Solved (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2005)

3. Review with Author's Response
–The Meaningful Question

One professional reviewer believes that a proper analysis of the air-mode Michelson-interferometer experiment should predict a null result (i.e., no fringe shift) and kindly suggests a way to do the analysis to achieve a null prediction.

The reviewer, however, completely overlooks the fact that the actual experiments give positive results (i.e., measurable fringe shifts)!

If an experiment gives positive results —as the Miller experiments consistently produced— then you would certainly want your theory to predict positive results. Yet the reviewer would like to see, in the paper, a negative (null) prediction!! ... What can I possibly say?

Anyway, here are the reviewer's comments followed by my (slightly expanded) response.

Reviewer (A) item 17: ... I believe that the reason DSSU [theory] predicts a non-null result is that the speed of light in the gas analyzed in the present paper does not take into account the fact that the gas is moving with respect to the aether. I believe that once the latter effect is included, a null prediction will be obtained.
(I believe this is how Lorentz agrees with Einstein on such a test, but I haven’t worked out the details myself.) –per 2010 August review

Author’s response: The speed of the air, with respect to aether, should not be of any concern. (Keep in mind, Lorentz’s aether can be ignored since it was supposedly undetectable; Einstein, of course, did not use an aether.) Why should there be any concern as to the speed of the air?—after all, the air is the same in both arms of the interferometer apparatus. The real question should be, why is the speed of light different for the two perpendicular directions of the apparatus arms? The speed of light is supposed to be, by postulate, the same in all directions —and it should not matter in the least whether one takes measurements in vacuum or in air. The air in and around the apparatus is not moving —it is isotropic. The meaningful question is, why is the speed of light not isotropic in an isotropic medium?

The Lorentz theory and the ESR theory struggle to find an answer. It is a simple question; it deserves a straightforward answer. None has previously been proffered.

But, aside from the observation of basic anisotropy, there is a far more devastating issue here. The real concern —the one that checkmates conventional relativity— should be with the fact that, regardless of the experimental method, the direction of maximum anisotropy (the direction of absolute motion or, the same thing, the direction of aether flow) is found to be remarkably consistent. The direction is always toward the same region of the celestial sphere!

As a point of interest: It is the fact that the relativity purists, many years ago, in the years following 1933, failed to acknowledge the checkmate situation and, instead, allowed the game to continue. Since they couldn’t deal with the evidence coming from Dayton Miller’s experiments, the strategy was to simply dismiss it and ignore it; and, oh yes, derision of person and ideas was part of the strategy. Even science writer Martin Gardner, in at least one of his books, participated in ridiculing Miller and his work. But the evidence was there; and the game dragged on. It dragged into a new century.

In the year 2002, with the discovery of the causal mechanism of gravity, the application of a new physics, and other developments, the checkmate argument was back —and for this round it was back in full strength.

The relativity purists are now probably fewer in number (or at least in proportion) but they seem not to have changed their game plan. And, predictably, they still don’t have a meaningful answer.

The Einstein theory (as well as the Lorentz theory) is unable to say why the speed of light is not isotropic in an isotropic medium. Within Einstein’s special relativity the question remains: Why is the speed of light different in two different directions?

What about the supporting evidence? Do other experiments, in addition to Miller’s, agree with the DSSU analysis?

As pointed out in the Manuscript: The value of 360 km/s that DSSU theory predicts from the Miller data is within 13.8% of the modern experimental value of 418 km/s obtained by Australian physicist Reginald T. Cahill in 2006. The method employed a combination coaxial RF cable and an optical fiber. Significantly, it was not an interferometer experiment.

The DSSU analysis [in the present Paper] is also supported by the findings of the Roland DeWitte experiment conducted in Brussels, in 1991. The DeWitte coaxial cable experiment (a 1st-order-effect device) using atomic clocks revealed a speed of absolute motion of approximately 400 km/s.

That the DeWitte and the Cahill experiments are not Michelson interferometers is highly significant.

“That these very different experiments [Miller’s interferometer and DeWitte’s atomic clocks] show the same speed and RA of absolute motion is one of the most startling discoveries of the twentieth century.” –R.T. Cahill, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion (Progress in Physics Vol.3, 2005) p29

Incidentally, the Michelson-and-Morley velocities, in 1887, were lower than Miller's primarily because the geographical latitude of Cleveland was less favorable than that of Mt Wilson (the site of Miller’s experiments).

4. Supplementary Discussion

Myth of the Null Report

Why, in the search for the aether, were so many null results reported? There are, it is quite true, a considerable number of published experiments reporting null results of the Michelson-Morley type tests. There are basically two reasons:

(1) The result really is null and is due to the fact that the experiment was conducted in vacuum mode. This has increasingly been the case over the decades as more precise instruments and better vacuum chambers have become available. The more effective the vacuum, the closer the index of refraction is to 1, the more complete is the cancellation effect due to the Lorentzian length contraction of the apparatus.

(2) A null result is reported even though the observations themselves are definitely not null. The observations were merely less than had been expected (often considerably less). This was the case with Michelson, 1887; Illingworth, 1927; and Joos, 1930. In those experiments, neither the refractive index of the gas, nor the length-contraction effect was taken into account.

The fact is Michelson and Morley did not report null results. In their 1887 paper in The American Journal of Science, “the results of the observations are expressed graphically in fig. 6.” And that graph clearly shows fringe displacements between 0.01 and 0.02 of the wavelength (of sodium light). As the authors explain, since the interference-pattern displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the corresponding relative velocity of the Earth and the aether is between 5 km/s and 7.5 km/s. Now think about what a motion of 5 to 7.5 kilometers per second means. In terrestrial terms this is incredibly fast —the entire range is over 15 times the speed of sound in air (331 m/s in air 0°). It is a speed that cannot be ignored.

Reconciling Contradictory Claims of Aether Motion

Theoretically, it has been proven that the detection of aether motion is quite impossible; and yet several experiments have demonstrated the reality of aether motion.

Aether motion has been demonstrated. Here is an excerpt from one of Professor Cahill’s papers giving the extent to which such motion has been detected: “That the speed of light is always c (≈300,000 km/s) relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of Einstein’s key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905. However, in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result. ...” –Cahill, The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005, Infinite Energy Vol.10, Issue 60, pp28-37 (Jan 2005)

Aether motion is impossible to demonstrate! In 1905, on the 5th of June, Henri Poincaré published an important work Sur la dynamique de l'electron which claimed that it was impossible to demonstrate absolute motion and provided an explanation for the Michelson-Morley “null” result. His explanation still stands when applied to the null result obtainable with a vacuum-mode Michelson interferometer.

How to reconcile the above two Contradictory Claims:

First of all, the very fact that there is a specific speed and not just any speed —the speed of light being 300,000 km/s and not 100,000 km/s— necessitates the existence of a light conducting medium. It is some fundamental property of the space medium that dictates the fixed speed of propagation.

Clearly aether must exist. And any motion of the aether would be made evident by the observance of a variance in the speed of light.

Lorentz could explain the intrinsic speed of light by virtue of his postulated luminiferous-and-static aether; and he could explain the apparent constancy of the speed of light by virtue of his transformation equations (the constancy was built into the equations). But, by uncritically accepting the validity of Poincaré’s proof, he was unable to explain the detection of aether. He believed that the FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction prevented the Michelson-Morley experiment from detecting the aether flow and was convinced that the aether could not be detected; and so the Lorentz aether theory was limited in dealing with the growing evidence of the actual detection of aether flow.

The reconciliation comes about by recognizing that two factors, in combination, prevent the detection of aether motion: (i) The two-way-light-path method of measuring lightpulses and (ii) the presence of a vacuum. If either condition is not present, it becomes possible to detect aether motion.

It is possible to detect aether motion if a one-way-light-path method of measuring is employed. And it is also possible if a gas surrounds the light beam of the measuring apparatus, if the arms of a Michelson interferometer are surrounded by gas (such as ordinary air).

And where does Einstein’s relativity fit into all this? Einstein embedded into his definition of simultaneity a clock synchronization method that required a two-way light path. In order to stay within the definition of simultaneity and time interval at different places, light pulses must be measured by the out-and-reflected-back method. The result is that the speed of light will APPEAR constant for all observers regardless of uniform motion —regardless of uniform motion of the observer or of the light source. Remove the two-way condition and you step outside the domain of special relativity.

Conjuring of Unreal Worlds
Mathematicians Attempt to Extend Einstein's Relativity

I persistently emphasize how DSSU theory is firmly rooted in reality. To better appreciate this aspect, it is always fascinating to take note of the wild speculations of other theorists. Two experts in applied mathematics at the University of Adelaide, James M. Hill and Barry J. Cox, have published a piece claiming to extend Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light. Their formulas extend special relativity to a situation where the relative velocity can be infinite, and can be used to describe motion at speeds faster than light.*

“We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we’ve approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective,” said Dr Cox. “Should it, however, be proven that motion faster than light is possible, then that would be game changing.”

“Our paper doesn’t try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes.”

What? “Motion faster than light”? Are they seriously suggesting the possibility that a physical particle or entity can overtake a propagating pulse of light?! Such a scenario is extremely doubtful. It is pure mathematical fantasy.

It is also a strange irony —the incongruity that within mathematics, the most disciplined of the sciences, the very Queen of sciences, within the science of the purest pursuit of reason, one is able to conjure up unreal worlds with unreal spatial dimensions through which unreal speeds are unrestricted.

* J. M. Hill and B. J. Cox, Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 2012, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2012.0340

5. Summary Table

The logic loophole in Einstein’s special relativity theory, its most basic loophole, allows one to make changes to its assumptions; this is possible because they are not exclusive assumptions. The all-important fact is that Einstein constructed an if-then argument and not an if-and-only-if argument.

Relativity Theory Comparison
Property	Einstein’s special relativity	Extended (DSSU) relativity
Assumption:	Basic assumption: ● Speed of light appears constant for all inertial observers.	Compound assumption: ● There is a space medium (aether) and the speed of light is constant with respect to it. ● Lightspeed in vacuum appears constant for all observers when measured directly or indirectly by any two-way method. ● Lightspeed is variant when measure by a one-way light-path method.
Further assumptions:	● Laws of physics are the same for all observers. ● No special frame of reference. (The unnecessary assumption)	● Laws of physics are the same for all observers. ● There is a special frame: defined by the space medium, aether.
How the theory is derived:	By applying the Lorentz transformations to geometric space.	By applying the Lorentz transformations to aether-space.
Theoretical conclusions:	● Speed of light must appear isotropic. (Predicts light speed is the same for all paths in the Michelson interferometer). ● No space medium. ● No absolute motion. ● No aether wind.	● Speed of light in aether-space (the vacuum) appears isotropic. ● Speed of light through a physical medium appears anisotropic. ● Absolute motion is detectable. ● Aether wind is detectable.
Experimental evidence:	Vacuum-mode Michelson interferometer experiments are consistent with theory assumptions (but does not prove those assumptions). Gas-mode experiments are inconsistent with theory assumptions. (They prove that at least one assumption is wrong.)	Vacuum-mode experiments are consistent with theory assumptions. Gas-mode experiments are consistent with theory assumptions.
Limitations:	Because of the theory’s ‘relative’ nature it fails to distinguish between apparent and intrinsic effects.	The theory IS able to distinguish between apparent and intrinsic effects. But the challenge is to determine the actual velocity, with respect to the aether, for any particular situation.

"No fairer destiny could be allotted to any physical theory than that it should of itself point out the way to the introduction of a more comprehensive theory, in which it lives on as a limiting case."
−Einstein, Relativity The Special and the General Theory (Wings Books, New York, 1961) p86

"The overthrow of successful theories that were refined or replaced by more complete theories is what makes up most of the history of science. But even as a theory is replaced, it is important to recognize that this does not make the supplanted theory wrong. ... Rather than saying one is right and another wrong, I think of them as being more and less complete."
−Dan Hooper, Dark Cosmos (HarperCollins, New York, 2006) p205-6

2014-10

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 19-01-04

Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein’s Relativity • Abstract • Links • Reviews • Discussion