Dear John-Erik,

According to W.W. Engelhardt:

"The Lorentz Transformation, which is considered as constitutive for the Special Relativity Theory, was invented by Voigt in 1887, adopted by Lorentz in 1904, and baptized by Poincaré in 1906. Einstein probably picked it up from Voigt directly."

This is from his paper:

On the Origin of the Lorentz Transformation.

Available from:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258818001_On_the_Origin_of_the_Lorn_Transformation

He also shows in this paper that Voigt invented the concept of time dilation which Einstein stole without attribution.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

I completely agree.

Jim Marsen

My 2 articles are about the reason for time dilation. In my opinion this reason is the prediction for MMX. First: no effect in transverse arm. Second: half effect in the transverse arm - in error.

Jim, you do not comment on my opinion on this prediction. Have you read the 2 articles? I did not talk about who invented TD but why many did so.

The distant mirror defines light - not ether wind. So, ray direction, c - not c+v is orthogonal to mirrors. MMX is seriously misunderstood.

I hope that you will give me comments on what i have said about prediction.

Regards from

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

As an advocate of Prof. Ching-Chuan Su's local-ether model, I reject the concepts of time dilation, length contraction and the Lorentz transformation.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment and its repetitions can be completely explained by Prof. Su's paradigm:

Time is absolute, i.e. there is no time dilation.

Space is Euclidian, i.e. there is no length contraction.

EM waves propagate according to the classical concepts of wave propagation in a medium. This implies that the propagation time depends on the velocity of the receiver with respect to the medium.

The medium for EM wave propagation in the vicinity of the Earth is stationary with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial Reference Frame (the ECI). And for interplanetary radar it is stationary with respect to the Barycenter Reference frame.

The ECI has been shown to be the unique preferred reference frame for the GPS and intercontinental time transfer between geostationary sites. The ECEF and Barycenter reference frames are ruled out as explained by Prof. Su.

I one accepts this paradigm then the only motion of a geostationary laboratory with respect to the ECI is due to the Earth's rotation. Motion of the lab with respect to the Barycenter Reference Frame is not observed for the GPS and therefore is not and should not be assumed for the MMX.

Therefore the MMX null result was not because the second order Sagnac Effect doesn't exist as Einstein assumed. It is actually because the interferometers were not sensitive enough to detect the second order effect due to the Earth's rotation (~350 meters/second) compared to the 30,000 m/s motion they were designed to detect.

Voight, Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein invented time dilation and length contraction to compensate for this mistaken assumption.

For further details pleas see:

C.C. Su, "Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction,"

Europhys. Lett., vol. 56, pp. 170-174, Oct. 2001,

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

For an introduction to the Prof. Su's local-ether paradigm please see:

C.C. Su, "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave,"

Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 21, pp. 701-715, 2001.

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

The full version of Prof. Su's paradigm is presented in a series of papers forming an introduction and 8 chapters of a book that he published in 2006 called "Quantum Electromagnetics". For links to 20 of these papers see http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw .

Regards,

Jim Marsen

Jim Marsen

Thanks for links to Dr C C Su. I have also been very interested in him for a long time. I also dislikes time dilation and contraction of space.

If we assume entrainment by our Sun we also should assume entrainment by Earth. So available horizontal ether wind is only 10-6. But even the effect of 10-12 cannot be detected, and we need a contraction of physical bodies to explain that. Without time dilation we need the doubled FitzGerald contraction. The behavior of atomic clocks I can explain by bound electrons moving force and back in relation to the ether wind.

Regards from ______________ John-Erik

To all

I have written a new article about this. See attachment

Regards from ____________ John-Erik Persson

The file was missing

JE

Dear James Marsen,

Just to mention that I had already mentioned this invention by Voigt of the gamma factor in a paper published in 2017. To my knowledge, the first mention of his contribution since 2001 by Ernst and Hsu.

See third paragraph from the bottom of the first column of page 2, first paragraph of Section "Special Relativity and the Gamma Factor" also on page 2, and last complete paragraph of second column of page 5, in this paper published in November of 2017:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear André Michaud,

Thanks for the reference to your paper citing Woldemar Voigt's contribution to the development of Special Relativity. As you point out, his contributions are rarely mentioned.

It appears that Dr. Voigt was cheated by history (and Poincaré?). Maybe the Lorentz transformation should be called the Voigt Transformation and Special Relativity should be called Voigt's Relativity. Note that Edmond Whittaker barely mentions Dr. Voigt in a footnote in his "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity".

Maybe he should have hired a better PR firm.

Regards,

Jim Marsen

Dear James,

Yes. It seems that many important contributions to physics that were made in the decade just prior to the publication of the special theory of relativity by Einstein have now ceased to be referenced and are now unduly neglected. Mainly by not having been translated to English, seems to me.

Let's hope that nothing major has been overlooked.

Best Regards

André

There's no such notion as Galilean time dilation. Time doesn't change under Galilean transformations.

It's utterly straightforward, nowadays, to deduce that the wave equation remains invariant under Lorentz boosts and that the electric and magnetic fields transform as linear combinations under them, if solutions of Maxwell's equations are to be mapped to solutions of the transformed equations, that have the same form.

It's another straightforward fact that all solutions of Maxwell's equations satisfy the wave equation (but only certain solutions of the latter are solutions of Maxwell's equations).

These are now standard homework problems.

So no, time dilation doesn't have anything to do with Potier's remarks, even though the latter might have been, perhaps, of, some, historical interest.

(The mirrors don't affect the speed of light, they introduce phase shifts.)

If you examine how this axiomatic foundation of SR was established, you will see that time dilation is mathematically reciprocally linked to length contraction by being interconnected by means of the sin2θ+cos2θ=1 trigonometric relation.

Clearly explained in the first part of R.E. Haskell's paper:

http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf

a) So if there is no physical time dilation in SR, then there can be no physical length contraction either. Then SR is invalid and the Hafele and Keating experiment data on time difference observed for the moving atomic clock with respect to the clock that remained on the ground needs to be explained by some reason other than by physical time dilation, because the time measured by both clocks was physically different as observed with both clocks sitting side by side after the experiment (while standing immobile in the same referential).

b) Alternately, if you assume physical length contraction, then the Hafele and Keating conclusion and data are consistent with physical time dilation, and then there can only be physical time dilation, but SR then is in contradiction with Maxwell's first equation, and SR still is invalid, because Gauss's equation for the electric field can easily be proven to be valid in all circumstances.

Which do you prefer?

There's confusion between the time dilation that describes a change of the time-like coordinate and the time dilation that describes the difference between the proper time of two events, computed using different paths in spacetime (since geodesics in spacetime maximize the proper time between two events).

The change of the time-like coordinate under Lorentz transformations doesn't have any physical meaning, because any coordinate, precisely, isn't invariant under them. Same thing holds for space-like coordinates.

The proper time between two events in spacetime is invariant under Lorentz transformations, so the statement that it takes one value, when computed along one curve and another, when computed along another means that the two curves can't be related by a Lorentz transformation and, therefore, describe different physical properties; the two observers that use them aren't equivalent.

Physical objects move along curves in spacetime, whose parameter is time-like, not space-like. That's a fact that's forgotten, and the consequence of that is nonsense. It's not possible to connect two events in space-time, that are separated by a space-like distance, by the evolution of any physical system. That's what causally disconnected means.

The reason this occurs is that Lorentz transformations leave the form of the wave equation invariant and, in particular, the value of the parameter, that has the dimensions of velocity. So all observers that can be related by Lorentz transformations, measure the same value for this particular parameter.

The separation between space and time isn't invariant under Lorentz transformations, either.

This is all well known stuff.

I don't think there is any confusion.

Irrespective of any theoretical considerations, either they both physically exist or neither physically exists in physical reality. There is no in-between possible.

Since physical length contraction reciprocally connected to time dilation as assumed as a grounding foundation of SR can't account for energy increase of the elementary charged particles inside bodies sustaining such length contraction that Gauss's equation mandates, it is de facto an incomplete theory not in harmony with electromagnetism.

If physical length contraction does not exist, this also mean that the time difference measured in the Hafele and Keating experiment is due to some other cause, that strangely can easily be related to Maxwell's first equation (Gauss's equation for the electric field) that SR is inconsistent with, but that escaped attention due to the overwhelming and endless arguments and experiments meant to "prove" that SR is valid, despite this invalid premise.

This is also well known stuff, but apparently not as generally understood as it should.

André Michaud

Dear André,

In regard to time dilation vs length contraction you wrote: "Which do you prefer?"

I suggest there is a third alternative: Neither time dilation or length contraction exist. And the observed variation of the frequency of atomic clocks in motion or at different distances from the Earth's center arise from physical causes.

And I prefer physical explanations for physical phenomena over purely mathematical ones that have no physical basis (I.E. the Lorentz Transformation)>

The physical causes are derived by Prof. Ching-Chuan Su in his book called "Quantum Electromagnetics":

In Chapter 6 he derives the physical reason the frequency of atomic clocks decrease when in motion. (For example GPS satellites moving with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame - the ECI).

He shows that it is due to the increase of the inertial mass of the particles that make up the gas that generates the clock's frequency standard. He shows this to be an intrinsic Quantum property of the particles that arises from the velocity term in matter wave equation he derives. The mass increase affects the energy of the electron transitions and therefore the frequencies.

He also derives the physical variation in clock frequency due to the clock's altitude. This is due to the change in the absolute value of the gravitational potential which is inversely proportional to the distance from the center of a celestial body and this affects the the transition energy of the atoms in the clock.

To quote from his chapter:

The “...clock rate variation can originate from intrinsic quantum properties of atoms. For a particle in a moving atom, the local-ether wave equation leads to a first-order time evolution equation similar to Schrödinger's equation. However, the time derivative connects with a speed dependent factor similar to that in the Lorentz mass-variation law. Consequently, the quantum energy, the transition frequency, and hence the atomic clock rate decreases with the atom speed by this speed-dependent mass-variation factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed in this factor is referred specifically to a geocentric or heliocentric inertial frame for earthbound or interplanetary atoms, respectively.”

It is important to note that the clock rate variation he derives is the same as the time dilation ascribed to the Lorentz transformation.

It is also as important to note that the clock frequency decrease is only due to speed with respect to the ECI (for motion in the vicinity of the earth). It is independent of velocity with respect to an observer. This is in agreement with experiment.

However, Einstein’s Relativity predicts that it depends on velocity with respect to observers which is not observed and would have made the GPS unworkable if it were true.

Please see:

Ching-Chuan Su, “Quantum Electromagnetics”, Chapter 6. The eBook is available at https://ebook.hyread.com.tw/bookDetail.jsp?id=19899 (for about $18.00).

This paper covers the same content:

C.C. Su, "A local-ether wave equation and speed-dependent mass and quantum energy," Eur. Phys. J. B, vol. 24, pp. 231-239, Nov. 2001.

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f6.pdf.

The local-ether wave equation used to derive the clock rate variation is described in the following three papers:

C.C. Su, "A local-ether wave equation and the consequent electromagnetic force law," J. Electromagnetic Waves Applicat., vol. 16, pp. 1275-1290, Sept. 2002.

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f4a.pdf

C.C. Su, "A local-ether wave equation unifying gravitational and electromagnetic forces," J. Electromagnetic Waves Applicat., vol. 16, pp. 403-410, Mar. 2002.

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f5a.pdf

C.C. Su, "Local-ether wave equation of electric field and interferometry experiments with moving medium and path," http://arXiv.org/physics/0208082,

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3a.pdf

The local-ether model is described here:

C.C. Su, "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave"

Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 21, pp. 701-715, 2001.

http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

Regards,

Jim Marsen

James Marsen

Dear James,

Note that in my answer to Stam, I was not explaining any of my conclusions to him, which would be a waste of time.

I was just highlighting the contradictions in his own beliefs, without even expecting that he would even try to see the logic, which as you can see was confirmed by his answer.

As for what I really concluded on this issue, it is exactly the same conclusion that you mention of Ching-Chuan Su's analysis.

He is absolutely right. But the real fundamental reason that I identified is linked to Maxwell's first equation (Gauss's equation for the electric field), which is a generalization of the Coulomb law.

The reason is that the amount of adiabatic energy induced by the Coulomb interaction in charged particles is strictly function of the inverse of the distance separating them. The closer they come to each other, the more electromagnetic carrying energy they are adiabatically induced with, half of which adds a mass increment to the particles.

If you read Section XII (starting on page 14) of this paper titled "Inside Planets and Stars masses", you will see the relation between electronic and nucleonic orbitals contraction as small amounts of matter are taken away from the large mass of the Earth. The atomic clock case is mentioned, among other observed effects:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Adiabatic energy induction in elementary charges as a function of distance is analyzed in this other paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

Thank you for providing links to Ching-Chuan Su's work.

Best Regards

André

All

I think that my earlier paper needs more diagrams. An image says more than words.

With best regards from __________________ John-Erik

All

I have added a second page to this paper.

Regards __________ John-Erik

All

I have described Potier's mistake in more detail. You can easily see that there is NO effect in the transverse arm of MMX. See attachment!

Regards from ------------------------ John-Erik

All

Here is a shorter version of Potier's mistake.

John-Erik

All

When we want to regard the ether wind in MMX we must remember the interferometer detects phase and therefore only vector c plus only the longitudinal component in ether wind v is relevant - since we can only see the normal to the wave front based on phase.

I have described this in a new article below:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7485.pdf

Take a look. This implies: no effect in transverse arm in MMX. No time dilation. We must use wave front normal instead of vector sum.

With the best regards from ______________ John-Erik

Have a good day.