The answer is given in the Theory of Reference Frames. The velocity of light, as with all velocities, depends on the reference frame. The velocity of light is not independent of the velocity of the source, the velocity of light is not constant for all observers. You do not consider the third option. Maxwell's equations do not say the velocity of light is always the same.

Thank you Daniele for your contribution.

I have added the third option that you propose.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

to my understanding, the Lorentz Transformations need the Constancy of the speed of light one-way but not the constancy of the velocity of light.

The non-constancy of the velocity of light implies that light beams depend on the motion of the emitter: light should drift if seen by a moving observer.

That is one of the absurd consequences of the resynchronization term

vx/c2 of the Lorentz transformations.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_experiment_performed_in_a_Lab_tested_the_aberration_of_light_emitted_by_a_moving_source_the_foundation_of_Einsteins_light_clock

The constant speed of light c (in modern "physics") is an assumed axiomatic absolute truth, independent of anything at all. This axiomatic fantasy forms the basis of the contrived Lorentz Transforms, which in turn is the virtual foundation on which " The Castle in the Air" of modern official theoretical physics and cosmology are built. This virtual edifice of official physics has no basis in objective reality. This axiomatic truth fabricates a virtual reality and even forms the fundamental basis for practical measurements in physics and engineering! At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: “The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792458 of a second”.

The following section is a copy from an article linked below:

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology" :

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

"But the question remains: Is the velocity of light (EMR) an absolute constant? Velocity is a physical property of matter that can only be ascertained through experimental measurement. As everybody knows experimental measurements involve an unavoidable error margin, even with highly precise instruments; so, one can get only an approximate value is any measurement. Moreover, the speed of light c is such a high value compared to any other parameters of everyday life that even a large error in the measurement of c would make little difference in its estimated value. Moreover, the notion that the velocity of light c is a constant arises from Maxwell’s equation for the propagation of light (EMR) through a medium of hypothetical aether or free space, whose properties are defined by permeability (μ0)and permittivity (ε0), where velocity of light c is given by the relation c=1/√(μ0 xε0). Now, in terrestrial nature the values of μ0 and ε0 are influenced by the earth’s environment including its own magnetism; which may not be the same elsewhere in the cosmos. But when a physically measurable parameter is raised to the status of absolute truth or axiom; physics abandons reality and transcends to the ideal world,with all the horrendous un-physical implication. This is unfortunately what happened with modern Einsteinian physics; turning it to a branch of metaphysics. We will see later how this came to be. The irony is that Einstein himself answered this question in the negative, when he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position". [4]

It should be mentioned here that a similar wrong turn in cosmology took place with Newton’s un-physical distortion [5] of Kepler’s empirically derived laws of the solar system; with Newton’s similar “jugglery” and indulgence on idealized mathematics – that for centuries and till now has blunted positive knowledge of the cosmos [5,6];the same is the case with Einstein’s theories of relativity. Both Newton’s theory of gravity and Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism were developed in the context of terrestrial Nature; but were then arbitrarily extended to the extraterrestrial realm,without any limit and without any scientific basis at all. Incidentally, it is of historical importance to note that both Newton’s theory of universal gravitational attraction and Einstein’s theories of relativity were put forward as a negative reaction to revolutionary development in physics – the Copernican revolution in the macrocosm of cosmology and the quantum revolution in the microcosm, respectively. The theories of both Newton and Einstein sought to undermine the impact of the revolutionary developments in physics and attempted to re-establish the old order in new forms at the behest of the ruling authorities of their respective epoch. In spite of all these, the principle of the absolute constancy of light remains one of the fundamental pillars of modern official science. This preconceived principle,forms one of the two primary axioms of Einstein’s SR, which in turn forms the foundation on which the edifice of modern official physics is built. It is the peculiar characteristics of all idealism that a notion is abstracted from a material/physical source; this notion is then brought back to the real world, as if it is coming from outside, to which material/physical reality must now conform to.

The postulate of the absolute constancy of velocity c of light and LT, brought devastating consequences for physics and cosmology in particular and natural science in general. LT is a Frankenstein Monster that haunts humanity for more than hundred years and still counting. As would be shown below in relation to the theories of relativity; cosmology in particular lacks positive knowledge and in essence still remains the realm of wonder and Fairy Tales as it was in medieval period; after Newton and later Einstein revived the mathematical idealism of the early Greeks to formulate their esoteric theories. Enormous intellectual, human,economic and natural resources are being wasted for more than hundred years to“prove” these theories with subjective and contrived experiments, to boost the credibility of these theories as ruling ideas".

Halim, because you have appreciated my contribution, I want to specify my thought, also with a few words, and to give a second contribution to the discussion.

The velocity v, of any physical entity, is a mechanical quantity that depends on space s and time t, in concordance with the law v=s/t for constant velocities and with v=ds/dt for variable velocities. It is valid also for the velocity of waves, acoustic or electromagnetic.

Lorentz’s Transformations were introduced for searching for explaining the outcome of the MM experiment. In these transformations, not only is the term vx/c2 absurd and forced but also the factor gamma is similarly absurd and forced. In actuality, Galilean relativity and Galileo’s Transformations are valid also in the absence of ether and, from this viewpoint, the existence of ether is a false problem.

With reference to Maxwell’s equations, it is a common opinion that those equations prove the velocity of light is an absolute constant. Neglecting variations of permittivity and permeability, due to a different medium, also ME, as all equations of physics, must be contextualized with the reference frame where the electromagnetic phenomenon happens and, then, it is easy to reach the conclusion that in those equations, the velocity of light and of electromagnetic waves is not an absolute constant.

Halim Boutayeb in the original first post you said:

-"This is in perfect agreement with Maxwell's equations and with any propagation of waves in a medium. "

You are right.

-"Thus, if one works with Maxwell's equations, this postulate is not needed."

Not really, it is indeed necessary because it depends on interpretation. As you said it depends on you assuming the existence of a medium. That is what the 19th-century physicists did, they implicitly assumed the existence of a medium, the luminiferous ether.

So Maxwell's equations do not require either of your three options. You can add any of them and they will be still compatible with Maxwell's equation.

Why then prefer any of them? To respond to that you have to know how physics and, in general, science works: As Feynman once said, your theory can be very pretty and of course logically consistent but if it does not agree with observation it is useless.

The second option is logically consistent (although very perplexing) but is the one that suits observations best, so far.

Thank you @Justo Pastore Lambare.

You confirm that special relativity is in agreement with option 2). But the second postulate of special relativity talk only about option 1).

Maxwell's equations are in agreement with option 1), either one think that there is a medium or one think that there is no medium.

I think that you agree with me that we do not need to assume the existence or the non-existence of a medium when we use Maxwell's equations.

Halim Boutayeb

-"You confirm that special relativity is in agreement with option 2). But the second postulate of special relativity talk only about option 1)."

Relativity is option 2) but sometimes it is expressed as 1). I think that is not correct to express it as 1) because it is confusing and does not express the principle clearly.

"Maxwell's equations are in agreement with option 1), either one think that there is a medium or one think that there is no medium."

Ok, you can postulate 1) with or without a medium, however, 1) was meaningful for 19th-century physicists because it was compatible with the existence of a medium.

Maxwell's equations are also in agreement with 2), but 2) is incompatible with the existence of a static medium.

I you interpret that Maxwell equations are valid in any IRF then you do not need a medium. This last option is in agreement with 2) but not with 1).

Relativity emerged because observation supports 2) rather than 1).

Not only observation supports 2) but relativity also did a very large number of confirmed predictions that agree with observations and that Newtonian physics cannot explain.

If Relativity is found someday to be incorrect (and probably it will) the new theory will have to include Relativity as an approximation just like relativity includes Newtonian physics as an approximation. This happens because those theories have been observationally confirmed and the new theory will have to explain what the old theories already confirmed. That is how physical theories evolve.

I read the contributions of clever scolars above! It is very interesting and instructive to read their opinions.

I add my contribution to this discussion also:

C= speed of light = 1 / SQRT (ε0µ0)

This directly implies that the vacuum has "constant properties", if one accepts that C is constant! In other words, ε0 X µ0 must be constant for C to be constant.

This "constant result" also explains "at least partially" why the speed of light is the same for all observers, even if they move within the IRF.

In between each of the IRF, there might be little problems to define what is the speed with respect to the IRF in question. However, the root of the problem comes in the measurement. We can only imagine that in between IRF the speed could be higher than C with respect to our IRF. But, as soon as we would try to measure it from inside our IRF, the measured speed of C would fall directly to the determined and postulated value of C.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

since I’m not comfortable lying in the Procrustean bed of your three choices, I choose my fourth.

I partly share your weak point: «This is in perfect agreement with Maxwell’s equations and with any propagation of waves in a medium». My stronger statement looks a little different: «Electromagnetic waves propagate exclusively in a dielectric medium. Destruction of the dielectric medium leads to loss of the ability of waves to propagate; such loss is usually associated with the term «absorption». Neither absorption nor propagation of electromagnetic waves in empty space (or «quantum vacuum») is absolutely impossible, because absolute vacuum in our Universe can exist only in someone’s noggin within the limited space of the department of theoretical physics».

As far as the speed of light is concerned, two things must be absolutely clear:

1. Speed is a vector quantity, i.e. direction is more important than module.

2. The value/ module of the speed of light is in full compliance with the principle of relativity, which is formulated in the form: «The speed of light is its speed relative to the medium of propagation!».

These two provisions are sufficient to deal with any particular situations encountered by physics as a real world science.

For example, if we consider the fabrications of some Lorentz, it is helpful to refer to the picture «Lorentz 2 bis.png» here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_a_debate_about_twins_paradox_so_bad/18 . If anyone (a Lorentz fan or Professor Feynman) claims that a beam reflected by a moving mirror will propagate along the line PQ ... give a woman/man/... two more chances to try her/his luck at guessing the right answer.

Regards

Dear Daniele Sasso , you wrote: >>… the factor gamma is similarly absurd and forced.//

This is a very interesting thought! Well, I agree that Professor Lorentz was quite a fraud, but …

I am currently engaged in a classic (Galilean) description of the same relationships as the relativistic revelations. And believe it or not, the same root is included in the expression for the symmetric case of the orientation of the light clock. Although I, as a fan of hyperbolic functions, am more impressed by the form of the notation γ = ch(α), where ch(α) is a Euler hyperbolic cosine; when switching to a language of completely interchangeable trigonometric functions, the same value is actually referred to γ= csc⁡(α)= 1⁄sin⁡(α).

Frankly, I have no idea what you see as absurd? Do you have any idea how to throw this factor out of the description?

Regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko, I do not think professor Lorentz was a fraud. I think Lorentz was a big physicist, but it does not prevent me from criticizing some aspects of his physical research, as I have criticized also other physicists.

I have demonstrated we can build good physics, without those two terms, in the Theory of Reference Frames and numerous papers of research.

Dear @Sergey Sheludko,

Can you explain what you don't agree with the analysis of Lorentz about Michelson-Morley experiment.

For me, there is no problem in Lorentz analysis. It is based on Huygens' principle and Fermat's principle of least action.

Please read this:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1928ApJ....68..341M/abstract

There is no problem in the theoretical analysis done by Lorentz and Michelson about Michelson-Morley interferometer.

I didn't understand your comment about the speed and what is you fourth option.

Dear Halim Boutayeb and Justo Pastor Lambare

Lorentz Transformations hence SR state that (as a consequence of equivalence of IRF) the "speed of light" is independent of the state of motion of an emitting body, to my understanding it does not mention the velocity of light.

In LT the velocity of light is not infact independent of the state of motion of an emitting body. This fact is a direct consequence of the time transform term vx'/c2 of the LT.

If a light ray is emitted by a body moving with velocity v from a platform it should be seen "drifting" from the platform according to LT as from every other reference frame.

That is how SR accounts for the aberration of light which is considered here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_experiment_performed_in_a_Lab_tested_the_aberration_of_light_emitted_by_a_moving_source_the_foundation_of_Einsteins_light_clock

LT can be written in the following form

t'=gamma-1 t +vx'/c2

x'=gamma(x-vt)

in accelerators where LT have been tested, the term vx'/c2 is negligible, hence what has been tested instead are

t'=gamma-1 t

x'=gamma(x-vt)

in these transformations (Tangherlini) emitted light never drifts in the preferred frame of the LAB which acts indeed like a hyper-medium driving light and is in line with the Lorentz and Poincare' conception of an "Aether" .

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

- What is the difference you see between speed of light and velocity of light?

- LT imposes implicitly 2) not 1) as you state.

- The second postulate state 1)

- The term vx'/c2 alone will not give you anything. If you look to Voigt t' it is simply the Doppler effect written in terms of time (the signal time t): t'=t(1-v/c), for an observer moving away from the source

Best regards

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

the speed of light is a scalar : the module of the velocity along the direction of emission.

The velocity of light is a vector including the normal component to the direction of motion which, according to LT, depends on the IRF.

See the example how the speed of light composes (weirdly enough) in the normal direction with Lorentz Transformations.

http://www.know-net.it/content.asp?ContentId=685

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

naturally, I can explain, although it is always easier for me if a living person expresses his personal objections, without relying on a ton of foreign waste paper that I need to read on the principles of volunteering.

In my opinion, Lorentz’s analysis is not based on the principles of Huygens and Fermat, but on the principle of the absence of one’s own brain, compensated by the jamming, with pushy stubbornness, of the absurd idea of his competitor named FitzGerald. Although this is my personal opinion, you have no obligation!!!

You’re putting me in a somewhat awkward position for two reasons. First, your proposal contains a hidden hint that there are a number of people out there who are smarter than you, but also ME; and the last circumstance prompts me to reflect on the question «Is it not a “casus belli”?» :)) But well, your text is too voluminous for me, without a quick look, to be able to determine whether it is worthy of reading or putting in a trash can, i.e. I need some time to make a decision.

Secondly, since you’re hiding your own opinion, it’s very difficult for me to guess what you don’t understand. Can you make it a lot easier on me if you tell me which of the four sketches you find more meaningful than the others? Perhaps in this case I will not have to invent the wording of other questions about scientific principles that will not seem too offensive to you. To the known drawing “Lorentz 2.bis.png”, based on a verbal description of Lorenz himself, I only added vectors of the speed of the system v, the direction of the incident beam LP and the normal to the surface of the reflecting mirror n.

As for your last sentence, you have two options:

1. Scold me for proposed to you paragraphs/postulates 1 and 2 (do not hesitate to express) or

2. Inform me if the source and observer are moving relative to the Inertial System “medium of propagation” to get an answer to the original question.

Best regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko

My option is 1) and I consider that LT and special relativity should be abandoned. I consider that 1) agrees with Maxwell’s equations.

The second postulate of STR is right but the second postulate is not on what STR is based. STR is based on 2), which I consider to be nonsense.

The first postulate of STR is contradicted by Einstein in 1907 showing an inverse Doppler formula for the moving source. In classical wave theory, the Doppler formula for moving source is inverse than the Doppler formula for moving observer. In his 1905 paper, Einstein present only the moving observer but he learned about the Doppler effect for moving source later.

Best regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko

About the question in this discussion, the three given options cover already all the scenarios.

- Option 1 means that if the source is moving, this will not affect the propagation speed.

- Option 2 means that if you measure the propagation speed, you will always get the same result, whatever is your speed.

- Option 3 means that the speed of the source affects the speed of propagation, and the measured speed depends also on your motion.

In order to wider the discussion, I purposely did not indroduce the question of a medium in the discussion. This do not add more to the discussion and this can mislead the discussion to other subjects. Lorentz work is based on LT and he has the same main results than STR. However in Lorentz theory, aether exists but in STR, aether does not exist. It is better to put out of this discussion the aether, just for the purpose to think about the different options given above. If this can help you, for example in option 1), you can consider that the measured speed is relative to aether.

The question of the Doppler effect is fundamental for understanding which of the three options is more acceptable and near to physical reality.

The Doppler effect is the variation of frequency and wavelength of the radiation, observed measured, and calculated by the observer when there is a relative velocity between the source of the radiation and the observer. Two cases are possible: 1. moving observer and source at rest and, 2. observer at rest and moving source.

Classical physics, based on the theory of ether, demonstrated the existence of two different equations in the two cases.

In Modern Physics, Einstein demonstrated the Doppler effect only in case 1 in Special Relativity (1905) with a different equation with respect to classical physics. Afterward, he searched for demonstrate case 2, but his attempts had many difficulties. In fact, the Doppler effect in case 2 is in evident conflict with the second postulate of Special Relativity, which claims the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source. It involves the velocity of radiation with respect to the resting observer being constant and, a variation of the velocity of the source has no variation on the Doppler effect, i.e. in that case the Doppler effect is independent of the relative velocity between the source and observer. It is absurd and in contradiction with experimental observation.

In Contemporary Physics, based on the Theory of Reference Frames, the Doppler effect is defined by the same unique equation in the two cases. In fact, the Doppler effect does not depend on whom or what is moving but only on the relative velocity.

I think the Doppler effect can be useful for understanding which option is closer to physical reality.

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

in which of your papers is considered the case when the “source” and the “observer/receiver” are at rest or move simultaneously (as in light clocks), i.e. the Doppler effect is fundamentally not observable due to the constancy of the distance between them?

Best regards

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

There is nothing more useful to science than conflicting views and clear division of positions. Any understatement, obscuring the contradictions in views leads only to a general stagnation and a transfer from empty to empty.

Let us note the differences in our views; I am only taking part in the discussions to identify the contradictions, but I am never seeking outside support.

1. The correct formulation of the question is as follows: What is the numerical value of the difference between the speed of light for the source and receiver from c; the numerical value «0» corresponds to the linguistic construction of «independent». The dichotomy «dependent - independent» - it is about nothing at all.

2. From your reasoning I have a vague doubt that you have measured the speed of light at least once in your life (???)

3. Your proposal not to introduce the question of the propagation medium I reject in the most categorical way, since this is the fundamental question, and questions about the source and receiver are secondary and dependent. Indeed, the relativity principle «The speed of light is its speed relative to the medium of propagation!» does not include the words «source», «receiver» or «observer».

4. You have very well noticed that none of your three options I have dignified my attention, finding them unworthy of my time.

5. Never in my life did I think of the idea of considering fictional substances such as «aether», «phlogiston», «philosophical liquid», «quantum vacuum», «empty space» and so on.

6. I have no problem with SRT or LT and I am not anti-relativist for the simple reason that I have never wasted time taking into account the existence of such nonsense. However, I take the view that the denial of other people’s descriptions of physical reality is not too much connected with the notion of «scientific activity»; only the construction of a different theory which contains an explicit description of the practically measurable differences from the results of the deniable description/theory is worth the effort and time.

Best regards

Daniele Sasso,

the longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect of light is a function of relative velocity only : it is the only example that does not allow to discover the presence of a medium by knowing the relative speed. The gamma factor does indeed that function in a longitudinal displacement as stated by Lorentz and Fitzgerald.

The transversal Doppler, which is the sole relativistic part, on the contrary does not depend at all on the pure relative motion. In a circular motion for example you can easily understand by Redshift and blueshift who is the stationary observer at the center (sees a redshift of incoming radiation from an atom which is set on the disk) and the one who is moving in a circle which sees the radiation incoming from the same atom located at the center blueshifted.

Dear Stefano Quattrini

Please read this paper

Article Relativistic Doppler Eect

The relativistic Doppler effect formula is different if the source is moving or if the observer is moving (they are inverse of each other).

In the 1905 paper, Einstein consider only the moving observer case. In a 1907 paper he presents the formula for moving source as described in Engelhardt paper.

I will try to find that paper and give you the reference.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

yes but the value is the same.

Dear Stefano Quattrini

They are equal only for one angle

The speed of light is always a constant of c, it is independent of the source and independent of the observer. The constant of c is the relation between space and time. This means that for the same physical photon, all observers will find the same photon moving at the same speed of light even though the observers are moving relative to each other.

This may seem illogical, but it looks illogical only because the definition of speed is faulty. This result has the same effect as the twin-paradox.

The reason I say the definition of speed is faulty is that we define speed as the traveled space divided by the observer's time, not the space divided by the moving object's proper time. If the observer's time is used, then the observer must use extra time to measure the traveled distance by the photon, and photon have zero proper time, so the observer draw the conclusion that photon is traveling space at the rate of observer's own definition, which is the traveled distance by photon divided by the observer's time for that distance, which is always the speed of light because space and time are only related by speed of light.

Then what is the observed difference between the different observers if they are measuring the same photon's speed? The difference is that the photon carries different energies measured by different observers when the observers are moving relative to each other.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

they are equal in the case the motion is pure longitudinal.

In other cases where angles are different from 0 or 180 they are indeed different.

In the order of a discussion, it is not possible to answer in a satisfactory manner. Anyway, I will search for being clear.

Sergey S. raises the question: “the Doppler effect is fundamentally not observable due to the constancy of the distance between them?”

If the source and receiver are at a constant distance, there is not a relative velocity between them and, hence, there is no Doppler effect: i.e. measured frequency and wavelength are equal to those in emission.

Afterward, Sergey raises another question, not directly to me: “What is the numerical value of the difference between the speed of light for the source and receiver from c”.

If there is no relative velocity between the source and receiver, the velocity is the same for both, because they are in the same reference frame.

Then Sergey raises a new question: “The speed of light is its speed relative to the medium of propagation!» does not include the words «source», «receiver» or «observer».

Naturally here it is necessary to specify that there are three main models: the model of ether, the model of Special Relativity, and the model of the Theory of Reference Frames.

In the first model the velocity of light (and electromagnetic waves) is always c with respect to medium ether independently of the velocity of emitter and source, in the second model the velocity of light is always c with respect to all reference frames, in the third model the velocity is always c with respect to the reference frame of the source. In the third model, that I support, the medium, in general, is not necessarily a reference frame but the medium represents only the instrument through which the propagation happens. In fact, the propagation happens also in empty space. The empty space is not “the nothing”, but a medium with precise physical properties, relative to permittivity, permeability, and mechanical resistance. Classical and post-classical physicists believe in the existence of ether but they know nothing of physical about ether. It is a comfortable concept but absolutely useless: about this, I agree with the first Einstein.

Sergey concludes: “I am not anti-relativist”. No one can be anti-relativist because relativity in the original Galilean meaning is essential and fundamental part of modern physical science. In physics and in science relativity does not have a philosophical and ethical meaning. Galilean relativity, simply, explains what happens in reality when the reference frame changes.

Stefano Q. distinguishes, correctly, between longitudinal Doppler and transversal Doppler: very right. In the Theory of Reference Frames, both are considered. In that case, it is important the vector velocity in place of the scalar velocity /speed), as he has specified in a preceding comment. I suggest reading the following paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343828719_The_Doppler_Effect_in_Contemporary_Physics

W.W. Engelhardt proposes two different equations for the two cases of the Doppler effect. I have already specified it is not correct.

Hong D.’s comment does not consider the fact that in physics are no important and useful absolute velocities, that do not exist, but velocities referred to reference frames.

Dear Hong Du

I agree with "this may seem illogical" but this is not "because the definition of speed is faulty". What is faulty is to consider an absolute speed c, which is illogical. Something illogical should not be accepted.

If someone prove equations that are validated experimentally by using as basis 2=3, it does not matter if we obtain correct results, such proof is faulty.

In a book on relativity, the author conclude that all the work presented in the book has been done with an absolute speed c, relative space and relative time. The author add that it is also possible to work on relative speed of light, absolute time and absolute space. The second choice is not illogical.

Dear Halim Boutayeb

Can you explain the logical law violated by postulating that c is a universal constant, i.e., independent of the observer? How can this be the same as 2=3?

In other words, you are claiming that Newton's definition of time is not a mere assumption but a logical law and cannot even be put to empirical test.

The universe can be even weirder than we can imagine but if we do not abide by the laws of logic it is useless trying to comprehend it.

Also, the first choice (absolute speed, relative space, relative time) is illogical. It needs always to consider reference frames. Absolute quantities do not exist. Only quantities referred to as reference frames exist. On the contrary, 2 and 3 have no meaning.

Dear Daniel,

Absolute speed, relative space, relative time is related to special relativity and it correspond to my point 2).

2 and 3 have a meaning in the mathematical symbolism. But here, we are debating on a question of physics.

Dear Justo Pastor,

Maxwell's equations are based mostly on experiments. This is how they have been constructed.

Time could be relative, and maybe time travel is possible. Anything that would show that time can be modified need to start with extensive experiments and analysis of these experiments to derive formulas that can predict the phenomena.

Voigt's paper of 1887 is about a wave equation. The wave equation he is using is exactly the same wave equation used for acoustic waves. This is explicit in his paper. In this equation, time is implicetely absolute. I cannot make it relative either it is for acoustic waves or for electromagnetic waves, unless new phenomena are discovered and I have derived new formulas to describe them. It is illogical to use a physical equation and use change of variables as a real phenomenon.

As a supporter of relativity, you are claiming that a constant speed c is a physical law and it cannot be questioned, although anyone can see that this is illogical.

Dear Halim Boutayeb

I agree with you, you cannot have different interpretations of the formulas (1+v/c) or 1/(1-v/c) moving observer and moving source of the Longitudinal Doppler effect : one explanation is good for light and the other is good for acoustics. SR puts in the middle the proper time to provide such an explanation but for acoustics that is really impossible.

Since such an explanation is not valid in general for DE, it invalidates the concept itself of what SR is trying to use, hence the meaning of the term vx/c2.

The only way to provide a physical explanation of the DE is with conservation of energy and momentum, nothing else.

Dear Halim,

point 2 is the consequence of Lorentz’s Transformations.

Point 1, instead, is a consequence of the second postulate of Special Relativity.

Because Lorentz’s Transformations are accepted by both, post-classical physicists, supporters of ether, and post-modern physicists, supporters of the second postulate, it is evident that there is a contradiction in both points. In actuality, Lorentz’s Transformations have only one mathematical conclusion: the velocity of light is constant for all observers. It is sufficient to do calculations, starting from LT. Hence, as per LT, the velocity of light is an absolute constant that does not add to other velocities.

The third option, the Theory of Reference Frames, derives from this and other contradictions, that are present in the first two points and in LT.

Dear Daniele,

I agree with you about the contradiction. My analysis of Maxwell's equations shows me that they agree with 1).

I removed the contradiction by abandoning LT.

I had in mind to test also 3). Actually, some waves can be generated within Maxwell’s equations with a behaviour in agreement with 3). For a constant motion the behaviour is agreement with 1).

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

"The only way to provide a physical explanation of the DE is with conservation of energy and momentum, nothing else."

This is what Enghelhardt has done in his paper. Do you agree with his calculations?

Halim, you raise the question of Maxwell’s Equations. I agree.

These equations say electromagnetic waves propagate with the velocity c of light. But with respect to which reference frame? We cannot dodge this question. Maxwell’s Equations do not say the velocity of e.m. waves is always c with respect to all reference frames because Maxwell’s equations are a physical fact and not a relativistic fact. LT says the velocity of radiation is always c wrt all reference frames, but correctly you have left LT.

In ME the reference frame is not specified, but it must be necessarily the reference frame of the source, which is the only physical entity that is present really. The medium is not a reference frame but only the medium that with its physical properties allows the propagation of the radiation. For instance, the empty space does not allow the propagation of acoustic waves but allows e.m. waves.

With respect to the reference frame of the source, we can suppose at rest, the velocity of waves is c, with respect to any other moving reference frame the velocity of waves is given by the Galilean composition of velocities.

There is not other solution, this is the only solution without contradictions.

Dear Daniele

In Maxell's equations for empty space, there is implicitly a medium which is the reference frame. If we resolve a problem with bodies at rest with Maxwell's equations, this medium is the frame of reference. If we add moving bodies, they move relatively to this medium. All what I am saying can be tested numerically by using Maxell's equations only. This is all inherent to Maxwell’s equations.

If there is no reference frame, Maxwell’s equations should be changed, not time and space.

I consider Maxwell’s equations and 1) to be correct. They agree with Doppler, Bradley, Newton, Galileo, Huygens, Fermat, and common sense.

The only problem was Michelson-Morley experiment. This is a very difficult experiment and it does not prove that there is no reference frame. They only get smaller effect than expected (not zero effect). The Michelson-Morley interferometer has one problem: the phase of the reflection coefficient of a moving mirror varies with angle of incidence. This add a bias in the measurements. The problem is resolved with Michelson-Gale interferometer by using a same path for both direction of propagation. If Michelson has used Michelson-Gale interferometer from the beginning, we would not have the theory special relativity and this thread would not exist.

Halim, I am not saying that there is no reference frame in ME. I am saying the reference frame coincides with the reference frame of the source. You verify the physical validity of ME and in the empty space, you make use of the values of permeability and permittivity of the empty space. You don't verify the relativistic validity of ME. If the source of e.m. waves is at rest on the Earth, the physical reference frame is the frame of the Earth. If the source is moving with respect to the Earth, with respect to the observer there is a Doppler effect. I don't want to convince you if you are convicted about your considerations. I respect them.

Regards.

Daniele Sasso

Dear Daniele,

Is your approach equivalent to Ritz ballistic theory of light? Thank you very much.

Halim Boutayeb ,

In true physics, the absolute speed has no limit, it can be from 0 to infinity. I can give a very simple example: an unstable particle has a fixed proper life time, say 1 us (microsecond). How fast can this particle travel? or in other words, what is the speed of this particle can use to travel?

You can use this example to evaluate the speed of the particle.

If I tell you that there is no physical speed limit, you will agree with me, right? The reason is very simple, when the particle is traveling at the speed of light to any observer, the particle will live forever and travel to any distance way before its 1 us of life time, so there is no such thing as absolute speed limit of c to the particle.

But I tell you that the speed of the particle appear to have an absolute speed limit of c to any observer, do you agree with me? You will have to, because nothing goes faster than speed of light when you compare the speed of the particle with a photon.

Now you should realize the problem we have: we have the faulty definition of speed. From the point of view of the particle, it can go anywhere in the whole universe within that 1 us of life time. But for any observer, the particle always travels at the speed less than speed of light c, but the time the particle travels is much longer than 1 us.

I have told you the answer now. We have an absolute speed limit of c because we are using our observer's time to define speed, not the particle's time. This definition of speed is faulty. Because of this, we have the problem of seeing the speed limit of c, and photons are always traveling at a constant speed of light c.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

Schrodinger, Fermi, Compton and Giuliani did it already.

Dear Hong Du,

I agree upto "If I tell you that there is no physical speed limit, you will agree with me, right?" After that I do not agree.

The definition of speed is not faulty.

Dear Halim Boutayeb,

The velocity of light is a vector quantity, which means it has both a magnitude (the speed of light) and a direction. In the reference frame of the source, the velocity of light is always in the same direction and has a magnitude of c (299,792,458 m/s). However, when observed from a different reference frame that is in motion relative to the source, the velocity vector of light will appear to be slightly different. This is what emerges from LT.

LT makes such that the speed of light is c, whatever IRF it is measured from not its velocity... in other words light is supposed to take the side speed of its source.

Dear Stefano,

LT imposes the speed of light to be c for all observer.

In your last sentence, you consider a velocity of light that is dependent of the speed of the source. This is not in agreement with neither aether theory or STR.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

Whether a definition is faulty or not faulty completely depends on the observer's view. If you think it is not faulty, then it is not faulty; if you think it is faulty, then it is faulty. Everyone is correct. There is no absolute faulty or non-faulty thing.

The faulty or non-faulty judgement only takes place when you use the definition to judge physical facts: when the definition deviates from facts or what is expected, then the definition establishes a faulty-or-non-faulty relation relative to the expectation, either the expectation is faulty or the definition is faulty. If the expectation is physical, then the definition is faulty; if the expectation is faulty, then the definition might be non-faulty.

You are in the absolute position to make the right choice.

Dear Hong,

Thank you, I agree with you.

Best regards

Dear Halim, you are right. My approach is similar to Ritz and la Rosa's approach: the velocity of light adds, like a vector, to the vector velocity of the source. With this approach, I built the Theory of Reference Frames.

Best regards.

Dear Halim, two first are true:

1) Speed of light is independent of the speed of the source,

2) Speed of light is constant for all observers.

Moreover, they are true for all speeds in a compound relative motion.

Dear Shukri,

In 1) there is the word "only", so you cannot have 1) and 2).

So I consider that you choice is 2). Do you consider that the relative speed is c for all observers?

I see quite some people try to add speeds up using vectors and reference frames.

As I said before, the definition of speed is "faulty", existing definition of speed cannot be added like vectors. In this sense the definition of speed is faulty because the expected consequence of adding them up fails to agree with physical observations.

We all know already that adding two speeds will easily violate physics because added speed might exceed the speed of light. This consequence is obviously wrong. When expectation based on definition deviates from physical observation, then the definition is faulty, because physical observation cannot be faulty. These are faulty-non-faulty relations between definition and physical world.

So I am declaring again that the existing definition of speed is faulty and I hope no one disagree.

I have already pointed out that definition of speed shall not use observer's time as human beings are doing it now. We should use moving object's proper time to define speed. With this proper definition, you can add speeds as vectors, and the speeds can be added among different reference frames, and the proper speed has no speed limit, they can be any value, and the addition is always physical.

Best regards,

Hong

If you consider 2) then you must consider that the definition of speed is faulty.

If you consider 1) then the definition of speed is not faulty. If you consider 1), you are in agreement with Bradley, Huygens, Fermat, Newton, Galileo, Doppler, Maxwell, Heaviside,....

Michelson said that if he knew that they will make this monster (the theory of relativity) he would have never made his experiment.

In my opinion, I think 1) is the same as 2) and mutually supportive.

That is if speed of light is independent of speed of source, then speed of light is always constant c, because changing the speed of source cannot change the speed of light. Vice versa, if speed of light is always constant c, then it should be in dependent of speed of source, because the speed of light is always constant, it cares nothing about the speed of source.

In my opinion, light doesn't have proper time, because light has no rest mass. If light had any non-zero proper time, then at the speed of light, the "time dilation" will dilate the time to infinity, so the time of photon will never move forward, namely, light's time doesn't move forward, or photon doesn't age, or in other word, photon has zero time.

Here is the orthogonal relation again: zero mass, zero time; non-zero mass, non-zero time. Zero and non-zero are orthogonal. If it is zero, then it cannot be non-zero; if it is non-zero, then it cannot be zero. It is like the logic of fault-non-faulty.

In 1) I have added "only".

If one considers 2) then 1) is true without the "only"

Proper time, time dilation etc. cannot be based from interpretation of change of variables in an equation.

For examples, the Coulomb force law is a result of experiment, the same for Ampere's law, Faraday's law etc.

The "law" that show that time becomes t'=t-vx/c^2 or t'=(t-vx/c^2 )/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) does not come from experiment. It has been derived the first time by Voigt in 1887 by using the wave equation, where time is absolute. His t' is simply the Doppler effect expressed in time domain. Voigt's paper his entitled "On the Doppler's principle"

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

I appreciate Ritz work and his critics about Maxwell's equations. Presently I work only on Maxwell’s equations, this is why I concluded that I have to consider presently only the point 1).

However I consider Ritz approach or a modified Ritz approach as a possibility, because it would be possible to satisfy Newton’s third law, this approach would be in alignment with the particle aspect of light and it could express all electromagnetic phenomena from fundamental mechanical forces.

Dear Halim, I was aware of the word "only", and I have deleted it! The principle of relativity is true, and according to it, there is no privileged velocity. Because of that the two first of your assumptions are true.

The principle of relativity is not true for accoustic waves. It is different if the source moves or if the observer moves.

I totally agree, whenever there is a background, the relative speed is just an approximation

Halim, for me Maxwell’s equations are perfect. I disagree with the conclusion that those equations prove the velocity of light is an absolute constant. The velocity c, present in those equations, says only the velocity of light and of electromagnetic waves is c with respect to the reference frame in which light and waves propagate. And, the reference frame can be only the reference frame of the source or the reference frame of the system which captures light and waves. The medium (ether in classical physics) does not capture them but allows propagation. Already, I said the medium is not a reference frame.

Afterward, you write “the principle of relativity is not true for acoustic waves. It is different if the source moves or if the observer moves”. This is the conclusion of the theory of ether. In the Theory of Reference Frames, for any type of propagation, there is always only one equation for the two cases.

The Principle of Relativity, in Galileo's meaning, is always valid.

I would want to give an explanation of what I have understood about the concepts of speed and velocity. I put before that in my primary language (Italian), there is only the concept of velocity. Velocity is a mechanical quantity that describes the motion of a physical entity. Velocity is a vector quantity, defined essentially by an intensity or module and a direction. I could see that in English the word “speed” could be used. My dictionary translates speed as velocity and, initially, I do not could the difference between speed and velocity. Now I have understood that English speed represents only the module of velocity and, hence, in this meaning, speed does not give a complete definition of velocity because gives no indication about the direction. Hence, in the addition of two or more velocities, the word speed is right only if all velocities have the same direction. On this account, now I prefer to make use of the word “velocity”.

Regards.

Daniele Sasso

One of the principles of Relativity postulates that there exists a maximum speed ( |v|=c ) that is the same for all observers. That speed is a scalar quantity, so it does not mean the vector quantity velocity.

That maximum speed represents the speed at which fundamental interactions take place like electromagnetic and gravitational interactions

The speed limit coincides with the speed of light c in a vacuum.

According to that, Newtonian mechanics is the limiting case of Relativity when the velocity of interactions (not the speed of light) tends to infinity

c-> infinite. (where c is not the speed of light literally).

That is why Relativity, in a certain way, includes Newtonian mechanics and also explains our daily pedestrian human experience. In our limited everyday experience, there is no "twin paradox" or things like that.

Your comment, dear Justo Pastor Lambare, is contradicted by the velocity of laser light which has a module (speed) and a direction. Light can propagate in different directions and, hence, the resultant of the light vector c with any velocity v, for instance, the velocity of the source, cannot be still c. It is proved by the existence of the transverse Doppler effect.

Dear Halim Boutayeb , now you see how well that worked out!

1. After the announcement of our interlocutor on the topic «à la Ritz» the third option can be thrown away altogether.

2. Now it is enough to move your two options to second and third places, leaving the first place for my approval (principle of Relativity):

«The speed of light is its speed relative to the medium of propagation!»,

and you will be absolutely right to choose the first option as the correct solution!

Best regards

Dear Daniele,

I could not find the original work of Galileo about a "principle of relativity". I cannot rely on what STR says about it. According to STR, Maxwell's equations do not satisfy Galileo "transformation" etc etc etc and in order to satisfy "the principle of relativity" we need new transformation etc etc

In fact, STR is simply based on Voigt change of the convective wave equation (for moving observer) to a wave equation for observer at rest.

For example, in March's book about the history of mechanics there is a detailed description of Galileo's work but there is no any reference about a transformation by Galileo or about "relativity" of Galileo. Relativity is a wrong word invented by Poincaré in 1904 because of His interpretation of Michelson Morley experiment. We should only use: relative velocity, relatively. Relativistic and relativity do not have any meaning in physics.

Dear Sergey Sheludko,

Your option is exactly my option 1).

It is well known in classical wave theory (with a medium) that the motion of the source does not change the speed of propagation in the medium. "The speed of light is it speeds relative to the medium" is the same than my option 1). It is different than 2) because you have a different relative speed for a moving observer.

Dear Daniele Sasso, you did not understand what I said, i.e, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of interactions which sometimes is stated as Einstein did, the constancy of the light velocity.

That principle does not state that velocity is not a vector, it states that the scalar speed of interaction is the same for every observer. It does not mean that the velocity of light has no direction in space.

Halim Boutayeb ,

yes, but in conjunction with your proposal to «throw out of consideration the medium of propagation» the term «independent» let them to design all the horrors and madness, that the relativists want us to have.

Regards

Unfortunately, I understand Galileo’s scientific work is not taught in high schools and in universities in many countries. Galileo is considered the father of modern science. Presently, also Newton’s scientific work will be left soon. It is heaviest because it prevents doing useful and necessary comparisons.

The principle of Relativity derives from Galileo’s theoretical and experimental scientific work. The Galilean Principle of Relativity was abandoned after the Michelson-Morley experiment because physicists did not understand or did not want to understand the result of the experiment: ether does not exist. In order to save ether, physicists were obliged to replace Galileo’s Transformations with Lorentz’s Transformations. It is not necessary and altogether wrong because in Galilean physics, the concept of ether is not present and Galileo’s Transformations are valid also in the absence of ether. Similarly, I have demonstrated Maxwell’s equations are valid, in the relativistic meaning, in the order of Galileo’s Transformations. Halim, if you agree, I can indicate to you some of my work research.

Dear Justo Pastor Lambare , you wrote: >>… which sometimes is stated as Einstein did, …//

Don’t pay any attention to this Einstein; from an early age he suffered from mental retardation and, as @Peter Jackson argues, it was only by 1952 that he had become a little clever, overcoming the legacy of children’s degenerative thinking.

Interestingly, how do you interpret the revelation of Genius «light never catches up with light» for the case of the propagation of two waves in the same direction (I allow myself to formulate this as «the relative speed of two waves is zero, i.e. c - c = 0»), when two waves propagate towards each other?

Best regards

Dear Daniele,

Yes I am interested to read your work on Maxwell's equations.

Thank you very much

I send you the links to the following papers now:

Article Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames

Thesis Invariance of Maxwell's Equations under Galileo's Transformations

Best regards.

Daniele

Thank you very much Daniele, I will study them.

Best regards

Dear Daniele Sasso

I used to understand "the principle of relativity" the same way it is taught in books on special relativity. Now I feel like Searl in 1909. He said about Einstein's "principle of relativity":

"...thank you for sending me...a copy of your paper on the principle of relativity. I have not been able to gain any really clear idea to the principles involved or as to their meaning and those to whom I have spoken in England about the subject seem to have the same feeling."

Searl had a strong knowledge of mechanics (including Galileo's work) and of classsical electromagnetism known at that time.

Here, I have found an analysis about STR:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=872a47375e8182bb35f28b038c50c33415640e05

"We shall find that what makes relativity theory so difficult to grasp is that it is not clear if it is a physical theory about the physical world we live in, or if it is a purely mathematical theory"

"Max Born: Length contraction and time dilation are ways of regarding things and do not correspond to physical reality."

"Lorentz considers relativity theory to belong to epistemology or philosophy of knowledge or theory of cognition, and not physics. In other words, Lorentz considers relativity theory to be a form of pseudo-science of questionable relevance in physics, which is catastrophic"

"Lorentz suggests that Einstein’s relativity is a form of philosophy and not physics"

"Einstein’s Principle of Relativity states that laws of nature are Lorentz invariant."

"Einstein’s use of the term “laws of nature” is (deliberately?) confusing: Suppose that we would replace “laws of nature” by say “Lorentz laws”. The basic principle would then read Lorentz laws are Lorentz invariant"

"Einstein claimed that the Lorentz transformation is a transformation between two space-time coordinate systems both representing real space and time, which was heavily denied by Lorentz and Poincare. But we have seen that Einstein was ambiguous on this critical point: The connection between coordinates was not only real but also a “matter of principle” or definition."

"The net result is that Einstein’s (special) relativity is not a physical theory with synthetic propositions, and thus from scientific point represents pseudo-science."

"The analytic pseudo-scientific character of Einstein’s relativity represents a form of physics from mathematics"

Halim, my idea is this: the Principle of Relativity is the clearest concept of physics. Its description was done first by Galileo. Then, as a consequence of wrong interpretations of experimental and theoretical facts, that concept was modified and new not necessary concepts were introduced: Lorentz's Transformations, second postulate, time dilation, length contraction, etc... These concepts are important parts of the two options that you propose. On this account, I have proposed the third option which is alien to those concepts. Einstein's Special Relativity and Lorentz's theory of ether are different but they subscribe to the same mathematical model: Lorentz's Transformations that Einsteinian Physicists and Lorentztian physicists interpret according to their particular exigences.

Thanks Daniele for distinguishing velocity and speed. I used them interchangeably. But in formal English, velocity carries directional information while speed doesn't.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

you’ve very well provided a voluminous sample of statements relating to relativistic insanity. But since I lost all interest in relativism from early childhood, I always had enough to describe the abilities of individual relativists to real activity (think of poor Uncle Podger), and to consider specific scientific issues, by Jerome K. Jerome «Three Men in a Boat». For example, even people far from relativism understand the following real situation:

I went to my medical man. … – "Well, what's the matter with you?" – I said: "I will not take up your time, dear boy, with telling you what is the matter with me. Life is brief, and you might pass away before I had finished. But I will tell you what is NOT the matter with me. I have not got housemaid's knee. Why I have not got housemaid's knee, I cannot tell you; but the fact remains that I have not got it. Everything else, however, I HAVE got." And I told him how I came to discover it all. …

After that, he sat down and wrote out a prescription, and folded it up and gave it me, and I put it in my pocket and went out. I did not open it. I took it to the nearest chemist's, and handed it in. The man read it, and then handed it back. He said he didn't keep it.

I said: "You are a chemist?" He said: "I am a chemist. If I was a co-operative stores and family hotel combined, I might be able to oblige you. Being only a chemist hampers me."

I read the prescription. It ran: "1 lb. beefsteak, with 1 pt. bitter beer every 6 hours. 1 ten-mile walk every morning. 1 bed at 11 sharp every night. And don't stuff up your head with things you don't understand."

I followed the directions, with the happy result - speaking for myself - that my life was preserved, and is still going on. …

Regards

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

2 days ago you wrote: >> The principle of relativity is not true for accoustic waves. It is different if the source moves or if the observer moves.//

In my opinion, everything depends on how you formulate the principle of relativity. If as I do (Velocity of waves is the velocity of propagation relative to the medium of propagation!), the principle of relativity retains its fairness. But if in the form of «no difference, moving two cars with speeds of 100 km/h and 120 km/h or with speeds of 1000 km/h and 1020 km/h relative to the air resting relative to the road surface», then the correct answer you get, by contacting the nearest traffic police station or even your insurance agent.

Best regards

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

5 days ago I allowed myself a provocative assertion/question: >>… the Doppler effect is fundamentally not observable due to the constancy of the distance between them?//.

You resisted my provocation with the following allegations:

>> If the source and receiver are at a constant distance, there is not a relative velocity between them and, hence, there is no Doppler effect: i.e. measured frequency and wavelength are equal to those in emission.

… If there is no relative velocity between the source and receiver, the velocity is the same for both, because they are in the same reference frame.//

Now, as a natural provocateur, I have in my head the following question/ proposal, which I bring in an expanded form.

See, by now I seem to have successfully solved the problem of computing classical corrections to the readings of light clocks moving in a foreign Inertial System. (I use my own, home-made postulate that in a closed Inertial System such clocks go «normally», no matter how fast – 0, 30 km/s or 220 km/s – such systems move in relation to the universe.) As I understand it, you also consider «sources» and «receivers» as physical objects moving in the medium of a foreign System; no matter how you call this medium, «phlogiston» , «Holy Spirit» or «???»; the main thing is that it is attributed some properties such as «electric permittivity», «magnetic permeability», «mechanical resistance» etc. («time», «carbon footprint», «charm», «holiness»???).

I want to assure you that, so far, I have had no interest whatsoever in changing the frequency of waves (neither acoustic nor electromagnetic) through the Doppler effect. So I would like to make you a suggestion: if you have nowhere to spend your personal time, try to consider the following task before everyone else:

a) the radiation source A moves at the speed u towards the receiver B;

b) the radiation “doesn’t know” yet that the reflector-receiver B forced to move in the same direction as the source A, as they are in a rigid mechanical link forming the Inertial System AB (clock);

c) the reflected from B beam returns to the former source A which has become the receiver.

Now, if your theory is correct and so is your statement «measured frequency and wavelength are equal to those in emission», then you will get a zero total Doppler effect by sequential transformation of the form f –> f ' –> f '' –> ... – > f (???) Or am I wrong? Do I have the right to insert a dummy fixed, resting C relay between A and B?

Best regards

Sergey Sheludko ,

I think you will be better off not thinking about reference frames and velocities. Try to break it down to simple things that can be handled in the simplest addition and subtraction math.

The simplest addition and subtraction will be adding number of particles. They are always straightforward and unambiguous.

Reference frames and velocity cannot be added simply, as you already know velocity has to be added through special relativity with convoluted composition law for velocities. That is, you cannot add or subtract velocities linearly. Same thing for so-called Doppler effects and other things, they cannot be added or subtracted linearly. That means these things are not simplest physical quantities. They are the consequence of other physical rules, you must find rules to break down those consequential observations to simple elements that can be added and subtracted linearly.

I can tell you that space can be added and subtracted linearly if we define the space between two objects and try not to define the space when the space is moving. If we define time at rest, not the time with a moving clock, then time can be linearly added and subtracted. With these simple definitions, you can work on the relativity effects. But there is a trick: space and time are orthogonal, they cannot be linearly added together, they have to be added orthogonally, namely they have to be added in squares, because they are from orthogonal directions. From this you can easily get special relativity, and Lorentz factor is the very natural consequence.

If you use the linear space and linear time and the special relativity due to the orthogonal relation on everything, you will notice that all physics principles are basically the tricks of orthogonal space-time relation. You will be forced to use energy to explain everything. That is: energy is the fundamental principles for physical observations. And correspondingly, energy also has two orthogonal components: energy at rest and energy at motion. Once you analyze everything from the simple energy point of view, you won't be confused and get lost.

I have said too much. But that is what I have found, and it seems to work very well for any physics principles ranging from Galilean physics, Newton physics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum physics, gravitational physics, optics and many more.

Sergey, you must specify if source and receiver move with the same velocity in the same direction or in opposite direction.

Hong, you must specify what you mean when you say space and time are orthogonal.

Dear Hong Du , thanks for the long lecture (which I have not yet fully realized: the question of Daniel I saw earlier and my noggin is now busy thinking about it)!

But in any case, my whole family loves you. Daniel recently expressed his disappointment that in our time no one reads Galileo, Lorentz (and Jerome! - my supplement), and in your text I have already seen the words «Galilean physics» and «Lorentz factor», which greatly encouraged me.

I really hope that you have wrote the text of your lecture based on the results of your own mental tension, and not compiled it from other people’s thoughts (?): in our time there is a huge number of «scientists» who are not capable of anything, but make tons of «scientific» waste paper. I do not want you to fall into the net of one of these pseudo-scientific sects, whose members will steal not only your time, but also your money.

While I am busy with Daniel’s question, as a connoisseur/expert of Lorentz’s work, you can think about the following question, which you already know from the sketch «Lo.png» on tab 2 here (January 19). If Master Lorentz derived some law of optics, according to which the light reflected by the mirror at the point P must necessarily get to the point Q, then how should the mirror at this last point be located, so that - by implementing the same law of optics - reflected light gets to the point P'?

With kind regards

“…Speed of light independent of the speed of the source or constant for all observers?…”

A few comments to the discussion. Firstly, considering this question it is necessary to understand what are “inertial reference frame” and “observer”: inertial reference frame is the system of scaled rules and specifically synchronized distant clocks, which physicists/observers use at measuring of utmost main and universal “kinematical” physical parameters of studied objects/events/processes in Matter, i.e. distances between objects, and time intervals between events and of processes;

- and so further mostly calculate other physical parameters, say, energies, momentums of, say, particles, bodies, etc. As a rule that are “lab frames”, which are fundamentally obligatorily set and used at every physical research.

Secondly, in Matter the really extremely mighty the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle acts: in any inertial frame all physical objects/events/processes exist and happens identically independently on with what speed a system moves in the 3D space; from what it follows that till the reality principle acts completely it is impossible, remaining only in the frame, to observe the frame’s motion – the observer doesn’t know moves he or not; and so, in accordance with the principle, assigns that he is in the utmost convenient “stationary” frame, where the description of what he observers is utmost simple.

Just so in the SR-1905 the postulate of the constancy of speed of light exists – really do measured in any frame, K, speed of light is equal to one value “c”, including if, say, between distant clocks on the distance, say L, in the distance middle a short light flash happens, then when the flash hits in these clocks , the clocks show equal time moments, and the measured in the frame passed by the both light paths are equal to L/2,

- while if the K frame’s the flash and clocks are observed in a “stationary” frame K’, where the frame K moves with a speed V along the distance between the clocks, the hits’ time moments are evidently non-simultaneous – the light hits in the back clock evidently earlier than in the front clock, because of the back light paths in the space is lesser than the front light paths, since back clock moves towards to the light, when the front clock escapes from the light, while in the stationary frame K’ the back/front “approaching and escaping speeds” are (c+V) and (c-V).

These speeds, which are different for the K’observer aren’t just the light speeds, they relate simultaneously to light’s and to quite not light, i.e. clocks’, motion in the 3D space – and in some medium/aether that would be placed and fixed in the space.

That is another thing, that, if we use the absolute Matter’s spacetime, which [and an aether] is cancelled in the SR yet in 1905, and further in the 1908 standard now Minkowski SR version, and suggest, that the “stationary” frame K’ is absolute, i.e. is at rest in the absolute 3D space, then the observer in this frame measures just speed of light in the space, while the observer in moving K frame really measures just the approaching and escaping speeds,

- however because of that the K-clocks are synchronized, first of all so, that the front clock is “younger” the back clock on the Void-Lorentz decrement -VL/c2, the measured in K as just the speed of light the approaching and escaping speeds have equal values be equal to c.

I.e. the SR postulate that the speed of light is constant in all/every inertial frame really is incorrect, really only in absolute frames just the speed of light is measured, and this speed indeed is really independent on – moves the source of light or not,

- while in all other frames really that are measurements of some combinations of speeds of light and clocks. However this speed is equal to c, and though it really is strange above, this speed is, nonetheless the frames invariant.

Here is no mystic – that is because of Matter is constructed as it is constructed, including, the Lorentz transformations, which are – as that Galileo transformation are – the equations in a stationary frame of motion of 4D spacetime of points of moving bodies, including points of reference frames instruments, which [the points] the bodies occupy at given time moment in the spacetime,

- when in the equations the coordinates values of these points that are measured in the co-moving with the bodies reference frame are used.

It is evident that parameters of the same objects/events/ processes in differently moving frames are different, while only in absolute frames all parameters have real values.

However, Matter is constructed so, that, as that Poincaré shown in 1905, the Lorentz transformations form the “velocity group”, and so any reference frame is traceable to absolute frame, and so measured in moving frame parameters are valid at description and analysis of what happens in Matter.

That is another thing, that the relativity principle isn’t mighty absolutely, in some cases it acts incompletely, while in the SR the relativity principle is postulated as completely absolute, just so from the SR any number of senseless consequences directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follow. This post is long already, so more will be further.

Cheers

"Dunkel ist der Rede Sinn"

Dear Sergey Sheludko ,

Thank you for your comments. Sure I am using all my own systematic physics theories to explain relativity, and I can say that Einstein, Feynman and all existing papers are not addressing the true nature of relativity, and the relativity theories currently taught in universities are missing the point. I am sure that not many people can understand my orthogonal space-time theory right away.

I am not sure about what you are exactly asking with the attached image, even I have read the paper in the image you attached. If I guessed it right, you are asking why photons appear to go different paths and land at the same spot in the rest frame while cannot do so when moving.

The path going from PB'P and the other path going from PQ'P at rest have the same lengths, so photons arrive at the same time. But when moving to an observer, PQP' and PQ'P' paths are different, therefore photons appear to be unable to arrive at the same time. This appear to violate the principle that photons always travel at the same speed of light no matter what paths they take.

Let me temporarily give you an answer that you can accept: they still arrive at the same time because when it takes longer time by a factor of γ for photons to travel PQP' than PB'P, but it also takes longer time by a factor of γ for photons to travel PQ'P'' (not PQ'P'). Why do I say PQ'P'' instead of PQ'P? That is because all the people forgot the simple fact that when photons travel to PQ'P', it takes time, and with this time P' has already moved forward to P'', so it takes extra time for photons to catch up and reach the new position of P', and people forgot to take this into account. Unfortunately, Einstein did so, Feynman did so, Lorentz and all other physicists except me did so. So basically they all fall victim to the temporary mental lapses to reason physically.

But more fundamentally, the common mistakes of existing relativity theories is that they use the observer's time defined at rest to compare with the time observed on the moving objects. To clarify, when at rest PB'P takes time of distance of trest=PB'P/c. When the system is moving relative to an observer, the observer sees the distance of PQP', it has longer distance, but the observer's time tobs=PQP'/c, so tobs>trest, but speed of light is the same PB'P/trest=PQP'/tobs. There is nothing wrong when you don't try to subconsciously equate trest=tobs.

Now the fundamental flaw of all existing theories is that they think tobs and trest must be equally treated. I say they cannot be added or subtracted or compared equally. I don't know who started thinking they must be equal, there is no physical evidence or support that they should be equal. Don't we see that fast moving unstable particles are observed to have longer observed time than the time at rest? Don't they be reminded by nature explicitly that tobs and trest are different things? Don't they get nature's clue that trest

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

When I say time and space are orthogonal, I mean you cannot add time and space directly. Take space for example, it has three dimensions that are orthogonal to each other, each dimension is independent of the other dimensions. For example, when x is orthogonal to y, they have the following properties:

(1) you cannot get component from y to add to x, and vice versa: when defining x, the other dimension y must be zero, when defining y, the other dimension x must be zero.

(2) x and y can be zero and non-zero independently.

(3) x and y do mix up but x and y cannot be added linearly, and both x and y will contribute orthogonally to length, which is a scalar in dimensional space. If you add x and y, then you need to add like x^2+y^2.

Now come back to the orthogonal relation between space and time, space and time are orthogonal to each other, just use the four properties above and you can get relativity theories easily.

(1) space cannot get component from time, time cannot get component from space, they are not interchangeable: when defining time, space must not change, when defining space, time must not change. The common flaws in existing theories include the definition of speed which use the time observed from the object when it is changing in space, or equivalently treat the time observed from the object that is changing in space and the time at rest (no changing in space).

(2) time can be zero (for example massless particles), space can be zero (for example at rest) independently. in practice, massive particles have both time and space properties, but they can be at rest (zero space property); massless particles only have space property because its time is always zero when at rest.

(3) when measuring the time of an object, space and time property contributes orthogonally: tobserved2=tat_rest2+tspace2. But space must be converted to time by the conversion factor, which is the speed of light, that is tspace=changing_in_space/c.

Details are in my paper.

Preprint On the Orthogonal Time and Space Relation with the Ultimate ...

Dear Sergey Sheludko

you said : "In my opinion, everything depends on how you formulate the principle of relativity. If as I do (Velocity of waves is the velocity of propagation relative to the medium of propagation!), the principle of relativity retains its fairness. But if in the form of «no difference, moving two cars with speeds of 100 km/h and 120 km/h or with speeds of 1000 km/h and 1020 km/h relative to the air resting relative to the road surface», then the correct answer you get, by contacting the nearest traffic police station or even your insurance agent."

I understand your description of a wave whose velocity is relative to the medium.

What I do not understand is "the principle of relativity". I do not understand the usefulness of the word "relativity" and I do not think that such “principle” makes any sense.

I understand the word “relative”. Example: Object A is moving at relative speed v with respect to Object B.

I understand the word “relatively”. Object A is relatively small compared to other objects.

I know that the word “relativism” is used in philosophy.

But, like Searl in 1909, I have no idea what “the principle of relativity” means. There is no “principle of relativity” in Galileo’s work. I do not think that we need such principle in physics.

In applied electromagnetism, there is the principle of reciprocity. But it holds only if there are no active devices/materials in the problem. There is reciprocity if only passive materials and devices are present.

The “principle of relativity” was invented by Poincare in 1904 because of his interpretation of the “null” of Michelson-Morley experiment. The word “relativity” (in French: relativité) didn’t exist before Poincare invent it.

Let’s suppose that Michelson had used the Michelson-Gale interferometer from the beginning instead of the Michelson-Morley interferometer. In that case, “the principle of relativity” and the word “relativity” would have not been invented by Poincare and they would not exist today.

Relativity is not only a word but it expresses a concept. In Galileo's work there is not the statement "Principle of Relativity", that was introduced by other scientists, but there is the clear explanation of that principle (1632), through what happens inside the ship, when it is at rest or in motion with respect to the referente frame of the quay.

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

I know the work of Galileo about the ship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_ship

There is no "principle of relativity" about this work. Galileo resolved the problem by using the principle of inertia. This allowed him to respond to those who believed that Earth was at rest (according to them we should see the effect of the Earth motion if for example we throw an object from a tower).

A person is in a ship that moves with uniform velocity v. If he jumps he will fell at the same place if the ship was at rest. The principle of inertia resolves this issue: the person keep the horizontal component of velocity v when he jumps. This component is the same for the person and the ship. Such that, if there is no friction, the person cannot see a difference due to the motion of the ship.

There is no "principle of relativity" involved in that problem. Galileo never referred to such "principle", and he never referred to a "transformation".

“the principle of relativity” and “Galilean transformation” are only inventions made by STR.

Halim, I disagree with what you write.

Now, is not possibile for me to be more precise but in nex days I will search referring what Galileo wrote in 1632.

Non, I want only ro remind that Galileo's Transformations are also due to Newton's work and, not as you write, to an invention of SRT.

Dear Daniele Sasso ,

I have thought long and hard about your comment. The question of whether to the right or the left, in my opinion, does not make any difference. The main thing is that the clock is such a device in which the source A and receiver B constantly change their roles, being in a rigid mechanical link.

Regards

Dear Hong Du , You wrote: >> … If I guessed it right, you are asking why photons appear to go different paths … //.

No, your first guess was wrong. The question sounded different and I want to repeat it with a more explicit accent:

>> If Master Lorenz derived some law of optics, according to which the light reflected by the mirror at the point P must necessarily get to the point Q, then HOW should the mirror at this last point Q’ be located (horizontal, vertical, inclined, ...), so that - by implementing the same law of optics - reflected light gets to the point P'?

To be perfectly frank, I am alluding to the fact that Mr. Lorentz was a common card cheater who, in a serious game, needed to be beaten on the head with candelabrum. … Mr. Jerome K. Jerome offers the following prescription:

>> "1 lb. beefsteak, with 1 pt. bitter beer every 6 hours. 1 ten-mile walk every morning. 1 bed at 11 sharp every night. And don't stuff up your head with things you don't understand."//

With kind regards

Dear Halim Boutayeb , you wrote: >> What I do not understand is "the principle of relativity". … I do not think that we need such principle in physics.//

Now compare it to my statement: «Velocity of waves is the velocity of propagation relative to the medium of propagation!».

As a born humanist, I have to take into account the fact that so many people do not think of their existence without the principle of relativity. These are the people I offer my principle of relativity to. Do you want some other principle of relativity? Then would you look at this baseball bat and this stun gun and maybe your desires will become less stable and you’ll be satisfied with what’s available? :))

How significant are our differences? I just have a more humanistic package of the same thought.

Best regards

Halim Boutayeb , Daniele Sasso ,

Indeed, none of the relativists could explain to me where Galileo explained his «principle of Galileo’s relativity».

Moreover, behind these words the relativists are actually pushing another set of words, namely the «Galilean transformations». These transformations are part of the relativism introduced by Philipp Frank in 1909.

Regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko and Daniele Sasso

Galileo's work is about very clear physical concepts: the law of inertia and friction. Anyone can understand Galileo's work this way. This is how he explained it. If there is no friction, there is no way for the person in the ship to see a difference when he drops a rock, if the ship moves or not. If there is friction (for example friction from air, or anythng else): it is possible to detect the difference!

STR replaced these very clear concepts with a metaphysical concept: "the principle of relativity".

There is no any principle in the earth that says it is impossible to detect an absolute motion! Foucault pendulum can detect such motion.

If the Foucault pendulum could have been known in the 17th century, scientists like Galileo could have proved with Foucault pendulum that Earth is moving.

Dear Halim Boutayeb ,

you are trying to take advantage of the fact that the Galileo’s «Inertial System» was too imperfect: the ship floated on a spherical surface, water was dripping in a bucket from top to bottom, not vice versa, ... But the story with the fluttering butterfly looks more convincing: the Inertial System is always a closed system for which acceleration is a secondary feature of little importance.

What will you do with Foucault’s pendulum away from massive bodies? You want to sail on a ship that revolves around its axis? (Oh yes, we both have to sail on a spinning planet, what is a terrible outrage.) I think that Daniel too can hardly imagine a butterfly fluttering in his «Holy Spirit» with “precise mechanical resistance (ko=0)” (?) Yes, another thing is that the fictional theory invented for fictional conditions is absolutely impossible to use in the fairy tales about muons, GPS and other delightful truths of validity.

Regards

GPS synchronisation is possible by taking into account the Sagnac effect:

Sagnac, G. (1913) L’ether lumineux demontre par l’effet du vent relatif d’ether dans un interferometre en rotation uniforme. Comptes Rendus, 157, 708-710

According to STR there is no possibility to synchronize the time of the GPS satellite with the time of the GPS receiver on earth. GPS prove the opposite: we can synchronize them, and t'=t in GPS.