Dear Professor Guynn,

Thanks for your answer.

Dear Professor Guynn, ---- Thanks for your answer. Your reply is a bit verbose and difficult for me to pin down, but.. As far as I can gather, you are saying that speeds of light of (c - v) or (c + v) are perfectly fine.

Can you provide any experimental evidence for light propagating faster (c + v) or slower (c - v) than the speed of light?

Perhaps someone can explain to me how light propagating at (c + v) & (c - v) relative to the end of the rod is "constancy of the velocity of light" ?

It's the same wrong questions that people keep asking! I'll explain this one more time:

a) Imagine a light pulse, a light signal, moving in space (vacuum). This light pulse moves with speed c and this speed is independent of any observers (Maxwel: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2, we see here that c is only dependent on the properties of the medium).

b) In the space where the light pulse moves, there are some inertial reference systems, IRFs. But just because there is a spaceship, a train, a rod, the light pulse does NOT change its speed! The speed of the light pulse remains c. And we say that this is the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.

c) IRFs are in the same space (vacuum) in which our light pulse moves. If we observe one of these, this IRF has its velocity in the same space (vacuum). Note that we do NOT know this velocity but we can also call it the IRF's absolute speed in space, w. This speed is the sum of different relative speeds. For example, the train moves with relative speed v relative to the platform. The platform moves around the Earth, the Earth moves around the Sun, the Sun moves around the center of the galaxy, etc. The 'sum' of all these speeds gives us the absolute speed of the train in space.

d) However, if we analyze the speed of the light pulse relative to the train, we MUST compare the absolute speed of light c with the absolute speed of the train w. It is NOT enough to compare c with v!

e) An example: the speed of the train relative to the platform is v = 216 km/h = 216 km/ 3600 s = 0.06 km/s. But during the same time, the platform moves to the side at about 30 km/s. It all depends on where on Earth the train is located, what is its direction of motion relative to the other motions (Earth's, Sun's, galaxy's).

f) In SR, various thought experiments are treated with two IRFs and a light pulse. The first IRF is 'stationary' and the second is moving relative to the first with velocity v. Have you asked the question, relatively WHAT is the first IRF 'stationary'?

g) These thought experiments are valid ONLY if the first IRF is stationary with respect to space itself (vacuum). Then v is the absolute speed of the second IRF in space (in the same direction as the light pulse is moving, on the same line).

h) Under these conditions we can say the following:

- light ALWAYS moves with c, c is the absolute speed of light

- v is the relative speed of the IRF (the speed of the train relative to the platform)

- it is NOT correct to do mathematical/logical operations with 'absolute speed' and 'relative speed' at the same time

- even if we have c ± w in an expression (w is the absolute speed of the IRF) we cannot say that light moves with c ± w

- c ± w is the relative speed between the IRF and the wavefront of the light pulse

Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe

Book Special Relativity is Nonsense

Book That is why theory of special relativity is nonsense

Dear Slowak,

>

So what you are saying is Einstein was wrong to add the speed of the rod or carriage (v) to the speed of the light ray c, to get the resultant speed of the light-rays relative to the rod or carriage ; (c + v) or (c - v).

This is because, as you say, the speed of light is Absolute, and always equal to "c".

(Said differently, he should have used the Einstein velocity addition formula for light rays, which would have yielded C = c along the rod or carriage, notwithstanding the speed v of the rod or carriage.)

In other words, it's logically ridiculous to "add" or "subtract" a speed v to the Absolute speed "c" ie. what Einstein does above, with his (c + v) and (c - v) speeds relative to the moving rod.

It goes against the very definition of something that is Absolute, and unchanging. Unalterable. Constant. Fixed.

It's now a little bit too obvious--- and even embarassing, Einstein's "Relativity of Simultaneity" was built upon a faster than light (c + v) and a slower than speed of light (c - v) ...er "hypothesis" -- which has been brushed under the carpet for 120 years.

Gary Stephens

"So what you are saying is Einstein was wrong to add the speed of the rod or carriage (v) to the speed of the light ray c, to get the resultant speed of the light-rays relative to the rod or carriage ; (c + v) or (c - v)."

You can't quote me as saying something I didn't say. Example: Car 1 is driving on the highway from A to B with speed v1 = 100 km/h. Car 2 is driving on the same highway from B to A with speed v2 = 100 km/h. You cannot say that Car 1 is driving with speed v1 + v2 = 200 km/h, but we must say that the two cars are approaching each other with speed v1 + v2 = 200 km/h!

If we have two IRFs moving in space and we add up their velocities, the sum of these velocities is NOT a property of one of the IRFs but a property that applies to both of them! Their relative velocity!

Therefore, it is wrong to say that c ± v is the speed of light.

The independence of the speed of light in a vacuum from the motion of the source is complete nonsense.

It is believed that c + v = c - v = c

and this is supposedly true for (1 - v2/c2)1/2 , that is, for the so-called "relativistic root", and it is known that these are the fundamental expressions of the "theory of relativity", existing simultaneously.

But then we have:

(1 - v2/c2) = (c2 - v2)/c2 = (c - v)(c + v) / c2 = c x c / c2 = 1 !!!

That is, for (c + v = c - v = c) the relativistic root is equal to ONE. The theory of relativity disappears, and with it the absurd expression c - v = c + v = c.

Dear Professor Lebedev,

Thanks for your interesting reply.

I think what the Lorentz relations --applied to light rays only-- do, or rather in the form of the Einstein vel. addition formula-- applied to light rays only--, is transform expressions such as (c + v) or (c - v) into c.

You can see this in action above. So the Einstein vel. addition formula -- applied to light rays only-- is actually correct, and give the Absolute character to the speed of light "c" in all frames.

The problem is, as you can see in the extract, Einstein used the classical bullets and ball-bearings approach to light propagation (c + v) and (c - v) to get his fundamental result : The "Relativity of Simultaneity"

Dear Prof. Gary Stephens

Thank you for your attention. Your answer, as well as Einstein's demagogy, do not seem convincing to me. I prefer to consider clearly defined kinematic, dynamic and mathematical conditions, and not a sly play on words. I do not want to talk about this empty topic any more. and I see the constancy of the speed of light in a light-bearing medium as similar to the speed of sound in water or air. If you are interested, look at my articles and books. Links to them are here, in RG.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"The independence of the speed of light in a vacuum from the motion of the source is complete nonsense."

a) Imagine a light pulse, a light signal, moving in space (vacuum). This light pulse moves with speed c and this speed is independent of any observers (Maxwel: c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2, we see here that c is only dependent on the properties of the medium).

Adjustment:

This light pulse is moving at speed c and this speed is independent of the motion of the source/observer.

Jan Slowak

You write first: Light signal in a vacuum...

And at the end: the speed depends on the properties of the medium...

So what - the medium or the vacuum?

What is a light signal? A wave? A particle, a photon?

If a wave is in the medium, then it is clear to a schoolchild - the speed is relative to the medium. But what if it is a vacuum?

What speed do you prefer?

"The independence of the speed of light in a vacuum from the motion of the source is complete nonsense."

Maxwell considered the speed of light in a medium with properties - in the ether, and not in a vacuum. WE NEED TO READ MAXWELL,and not Einsteine epigones with their relativism, which POINCARE did not recognize.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"You write first: Light signal in a vacuum...

And at the end: the speed depends on the properties of the medium...

So what - the medium or the vacuum?"

vacuum = medium (with characteristics μ0, ε0, according to Maxwell)

"What is a light signal? A wave? A particle, a photon?"

A wave

"What speed do you prefer?"

c = 1/(μ0ε0)1/2, according to Maxwell

Well, if "vacuum = medium", then I take my hat off to phenomenal illiteracy.

And don't you dare refer to Maxwell!

I ask everyone who sees your revelation to know: Maxwell never wrote or said anything like that to anyone, he solved a problem related not to a vacuum, but to ether.

Continuing the discussion is pointless.

@Author & all the members of ResearchGate

The detailed answer of this fraud by Einstein is given in the Rebuttal paper in my profile. You should not expect me writing 17 pages on this comment so read the paper as it is so elaborate that you will cry out Einstein was a scientific fraud.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"I take my hat off to phenomenal illiteracy"

You don't have to be insulting. There's no point in such attacks between people with higher education, not even between ordinary people.

Please check the definition of vacuum, medium and ether:

a) Vacuum

Definition:

A vacuum is a space without matter, i.e. without atoms or molecules. In practice, a perfect vacuum cannot be achieved, but physics defines it as an environment in which the density of particles is negligible.

Propagation of light:

In a vacuum, light (electromagnetic waves) travels at the maximum possible speed in the universe, namely c=299792458m/s.

It is in this environment that the fundamental properties of light (such as its speed, frequency and wavelength) are defined in classical electromagnetic theory (Maxwell's equations in a vacuum). b) Medium (material medium) Definition: A medium is a physical material through which light can travel, such as air, water, glass or other dielectric materials. It is characterized by its optical properties: permittivity ε, permeability μ and often a refractive index n. c) Aether (also: luminiferous aether) Definition: "Aether" was a hypothetical medium proposed during the 17th–19th centuries to explain how light could travel through space, before it was accepted that light could propagate in a vacuum. It was considered an omnipresent, very rigid but massless medium that could carry light waves (similar to how sound is carried by air). Propagation of light: According to the aether theory, light would be a wave motion in the aether, just as sound waves are a motion in air. Therefore, it was believed that the speed of light would depend on the motion of the observer relative to the aether. However, the classic experiment by Michelson and Morley (1887) showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the observer, which contradicts the existence of such an aether. The result became one of the cornerstones of the special theory of relativity, where the speed of light in a vacuum is postulated to be constant for all observers – without the need for an ether.

So, according to me: Light propagates in a medium with permittivity ε0, permeability μ0 and this medium is called vacuum and Maxwell has given it the name ether. When it comes to the propagation of light, these three concepts are equivalent: We have only one reality.

Jan Slowak

I am not insulting anyone. On the contrary, I take my hat off to the quality that has reached the highest level. I now see the ability to read and quote. But one must also think about what one has read. This also applies to that mess of contradictions that you sent. Not everything that is written should be blindly believed. One must also use one's head.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

...Bravo !

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"This also applies to that mess of contradictions that you sent."

Can you write what leads to contradictions in what I wrote?

Jan Slowak

I can. But I don't want to deal with your education. You're boring me.

I am a straightforward person.

I already wrote that I'm ending the discussion, but each time you show with your letters that you don't want or are not able to understand the meaning of what was written to you or by you. This also applies to contradictions.

Enough. Let's stop. Is that clear?

@ Vladimir A. Lebedev

It seems you have read my rebuttal paper. I wonder what else is needed to declare that Einstein was a scientific fraud. Let all the members of ResearchGate read my this Rebuttal paper then they will be in forefront to call Einstein was a scientific fraud.

Jan Slowak

I can't help but add. I think that in fact you hold quite sound views and understanding of physical phenomena. But the form of the discussion (the style and content of your questions) provokes sharp answers. I believe you will not be angry with me for long.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

No, I haven't read it, there are a lot of such articles. Apparently, you haven't seen them. But your article won't be superfluous either, the more of them, the better. I welcomed your views on the world and on Einstein's cunning. Bravo again!

Vladimir A. Lebedev

a) "I can. But I don't want to deal with your education. You're boring me."

b) "I can't help but add. I think that in fact you hold quite sound views and understanding of physical phenomena. But the form of the discussion (the style and content of your questions) provokes sharp answers."

It would be much better if you wrote about the topic, about my question, than about me as a person. I have seen it many times that if someone cannot answer a question, they start attacking the person instead.

If you don't want to answer my question Can you write what leads to contradictions in what I wrote? then you don't have to respond to this comment.

@ Vladimir Lebedev and All the members of ResearchGate.

Please find time to go through my rebuttal paper available in my profile wherein every fraud of Einstein is exposed. Besides mathematical fraud the experimental evidence of his fraud started pouring in late twentieth century and early twenty first century in the form of failure of his theory in so far as transverse Doppler effect is concerned which is discussed in my paper titled 'Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe'. I assure you that you will not regret for the time you spend on reading these papers.

Reread your letter. It says: I think that in fact you hold quite sound views and understanding of physical phenomena.

And you call this an attack?

Here's your contradiction! Your previous letters about physics are similar to this one.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

You advertise your article well. But whose articles on this topic have you read yourself? Who do you quote in your article? Whose articles on this topic would you recommend?

Vladimir A Lebedev

There are hundreds of articles on General Science Journal against relativity but I have caught hold of Einstein by the throat mathematically, theoretically and most importantly experimentally.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

I see a like-minded person in you. Therefore, I am very sorry that your article will be among the same hundred articles that you have not read. You will be treated the same way as you have treated others. I wish you success and I am very sorry that you will not be read. As for the experimental refutation, it was evident from the very beginning of the development of the theory of relativity. There are many examples of this. And I will only mention two or three.

Michelson and Morley discovered that the speed of light is different in the vertical and horizontal directions. Did you know this? I doubt it. The speed of light is not constant, this is evident from the laws of refraction (in the medium), and the deflection of the beam near massive celestial bodies is already in a vacuum... There are other experiments, you are not the first here. And there is not a single experiment that reliably confirms the theory of relativity.

Read others, then you will be read too. I sincerely wish you success!

Let me add: if you had recommended at least one other article by anyone other than yourself, I would have already read you.

@ Vladimir Lebedev and All the members of ResearchGate

Have a read of below mentioned passage and you will see that Einstein's paradigm is to be demolished now or never.

Kindly send this information to every office bearer of Nobel prize for physics and Physiology & medicine so that they cannot say afterwards that they did not know about this. Once Nobel prize is deservingly given to the discovery of aether that will be the end of Big Bang Theory the foundation of atheistic main-stream physics. Acceptance of discovery of aether, proved without any doubt whatsoever, will be beginning of theistic physics. I don't care whether they give me the Nobel prize or not but they should accept the truth for denying the truth knowingly they have to kill their conscience for which they will be answerable before God. Their conscience will curse the nominators and selectors of Nobel prize for physics for not giving the prize to the discoverer of the aether throughout their life though ultimately the discovery of aether will have to be awarded the Nobel prize. Let the Nobel prize organisation be truthful and if this will not awaken the conscience of the nominators and selectors then nothing can. I do realise the problem of Nobel prize organisations because all the nominators will have to be from the main-stream physics who do not want to know anything about what dissident physicists say or write. I being the dissident physicist so all the nominators would not like to include me in the list. For this hurdle I have the rational solution which is that those nominators be selected who accept my 'open challenge' and prove me wrong. It is worthwhile to mention here that I have put forward an open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics i.e. main-stream physics in 2012 which is standing till today.

Following is the link to my publications including my open challenge

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Khan-516/research

(Please also share this link with every university and science college of the world including research institutions of the world like NASA, ESA, CERN, FERMILAB etc.)

After the discovery of the existence of aether, the electric dipoles & fifth constituent of universe, in the year 2011 and putting forward the open challenge in 2012 to the adopted paradigm of physics I thought the prestigious Nobel prize Organisation will realise the importance of my discovery some day. But I waited for fourteen years but nothing happened though the open challenge continues to be standing till date. I did approach my government, wherein pathetic conditions prevail so far as education and science & technology are concerned, and there also nothing happened. Now I have decided to claim the Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine as a matter of right accordingly I have posted following post on LinkedIn which is self explanatory.

I want that all the professional members on LinkedIn should recommend me for award of Nobel prizes in physics and Physiology & medicine for following discoveries and scientific research.

1. Discovery of aether, the electric dipoles as fifth constituent of the universe, without any doubt whatsoever in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled "Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' and substantiated by my several published papers.

2. Consequent upon discovery of aether, the electric dipoles, light/radiation has been shown to be the electromagnetic wave motion propagating in the electric dipoles of aether. Also consequent upon the discovery of aether all the four forces of nature are reduced to one force i. e. electromagnetic force in the scientific research paper titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things and Living Things'.

3. The Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Minkowski geometry, Space-time Concept, Dark Matter and Dark Energy including the famous formula E=mc^2 are shown to be absolutely baseless in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' This paper also substantiates the existence of aether theoretically and experimentally.

4. A correct and flawless theory of cosmology has been proposed and published in the peer-reviewed journal titled 'Energy Theory of Matter and Cosmology'

5. A different paradigm of biological sciences has been proposed and published in the paper titled 'Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' of which the revised version is under process wherein a metaphysical substance has been introduced, given the name of 'energy', which explains the consciousness, instincts, gowth, self-repair, cell function but above all biological laws This is the only alternative to explain the mentioned phenomena of life in all animal species including humans by reviving vitalism and called Revitalism. The laws of nature having been reduced to one electromagnetic force can in no case explain all phenomena of life.

The above-mentioned papers and other papers are available on journal site of Indian Journal of Science and Technology, General Science Journal, Natural Philosophers Database , ResearchGate, SlideShare, viXra, Elixir Online Publishing journal, Academia.edu etc in my profile.

On the basis of above-mentioned work I feel it is my right to claim the Nobel prizes as the adopted paradigm of physics is under open challenge which is standing since 2012 and it has been defended against several attempts of trying to disprove me.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan (IFS)

M.Sc (physics) M.Sc (forestry)

Ex. Director, Writer, Scientist, Philosopher and above all a Philanthropist.

Note:- This may also be sent to all those who are concerned with nomination and selection of Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine. Please find out their emails or pages on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, twitter, LinkedIn etc. and send them this post.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Narcissism will destroy you, not dissidence.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"Michelson and Morley discovered that the speed of light is different in the vertical and horizontal directions."

It would be good to know what you mean by 'vertical and horizontal directions'.

"The speed of light is not constant"

It depends. But when it comes to SR, we always talk about thought experiments in one and the same medium (e.g. vacuum), and there the speed density of light is constant.

"And there is not a single experiment that reliably confirms the theory of relativity."

Thank you very much for this confirmation.

Book Special Relativity is Nonsense

Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe

Book That is why theory of special relativity is nonsense

Jan Slowak

Can't stop? You should go to parliament. Not everyone there knows what a vertical and horizontal are either.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"Can't stop? You should go to parliament. Not everyone there knows what a vertical and horizontal are either."

If you think I don't know what vertical and horizontal are, then you're wrong. You wrote earlier:

"Michelson and Morley discovered that the speed of light is different in the vertical and horizontal directions."

You should have explained more precisely here.

But what you claim is wrong: Michelson and Morley have NOT shown that the speed of light is different in different directions. They have only shown that no matter how they turned the interferometer, they could NOT see any change in the interference pattern. This can only be interpreted as meaning that they have NOT shown anything.

Jan Slowak

A chatterbox, copying platitudes from textbooks.

Try reading Michelson and Morley themselves, not their stupid and lying interpreters.

That's it! This is unbearable. I am plugging the fountain of your ignorance from my side. Pour your emptiness on others.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Thank you for your nice comments. Now I understand how you think.

Dingle says above, the light-rays made it back at the same time, ie. simultaneously. So the result was "as if" the apparatus were "stationary", notwithstanding its supposed motion v in the parallel direction.

Gary Stephens

Dingle gives a fairly logical description of how the light beam would move in the device/interferometer.

I have done the analysis of the MME, have calculated the distances covered by the light beam in both arms of the interferometer, there and back. The difference between these distances is so small that the device could not detect any differences in the interference pattern, Δy = 0.000 000 030 m or 30 nanometers. You could not read these small differences at different positions of the device.

The principle I used is the same as in the article

Preprint The analysis of the path of the light beams through the Sagn...

For the analysis of the MME see

Book Special Relativity is Nonsense

Book Light - The Absolute Reference in the Universe