Didn't the third paragraph contradict with first paragraph? Because even though it being drag by atom any body mass can't reach the speed on light according to math.

Also Sagnac experiment explain about rotation frame not the medium.

But this is interesting theory though.

Light behaves differently depending upon the context, but always to the effect that space and time have an Absolute character. (We don't carry around our own separate times, as purported in Special Relativity.) There is no "Relativity of Simultaneity" and there is no length contraction or time dilation, and no ).

For uniform motion, ie. in the context of the Michelson Morley experiment or the Fizeau experiment, light-speed is "Absolute"-- meaning the same for all observers, notwithstanding their relative motion. So, in this regard it could be (and is) considered an a universal constant "c".

However, in the context of the Sagnac effect-- circular motion-- which means accelerated motion, then light behaves differently. It behaves in a classical manner, in which we can have speeds other that the speed of light. So we can have (c + ω) and (c - ω) -- meaning speeds other than the speed of light.

The reason light behaves in a classical manner, in the case of the Sagnac effect, is because the Logic of Relative motion no longer applies, and so the light can only exist in one frame. This frame is fixed by the circular (accelerated) nature of the setup.

Since, in the case, the light can only exist in one frame--- there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity. Again we have an Absolute character to space and time.

But this post is already too long. That is the gist of it, as far as I can gather.

Preprint On Einstein’s use of the classical addition of velocities (c...

• Maxwell's electromagnetic model of light is highly robust and remains the foundation for understanding the entire electromagnetic spectrum—from DC (direct current) to gamma rays. It is widely used in engineering and physics applications.
• Phenomena such as scattering, interference, and radiation are all accurately described by Maxwell's equations.
• Visualizing light as a rotating dipole may be conceptually helpful in limited contexts, but it is insufficient for practical modeling and engineering purposes.
• The Sagnac effect is fully explained within classical wave theory, assuming a non-rotating medium. Contrary to your claim, the rotating Earth moves through this medium. A theory where the speed of light depends on the motion of the source would predict no fringe shifts—in conflict with experimental results. I suggest you to search for Sagnac original paper.
• The presence of electromagnetic waves does not imply the absence of particles. For example, water waves are continuous disturbances, yet water itself consists of discrete molecules.

As such a reference fixed with respect to the system of interest can be a practical solution to limit the relative problem.

Say over the space of interest, set many observe beacons relatively stationary with each other and broadcast nearby events like we did for the big sailing time in history. Each harbor reports docking at a fixed speed between harbors and you can back calculated the speed of a pilot boat probably much slower and not useful but reflect truth afterwards. Say it is twice faster than what the harbor reported.

The speed limit of reporting is speed of light the fastest we know. So if the route of a boat of interest is circular, we may be able to predict this arrival boat whose speed is faster than light.

Dear all,

I have proposed a new technique to derive Planck's law without the concept of light quanta. It is in the end of this video:

https://youtu.be/oudaulTkuJg?si=2xVoYOjnvXTN_TTa

It is not published yet but I have published a paper about Compton effect, where I have replicated the results without relativity or quantization of energy but only with classical electromagnetism.

Best regards

Light is the god particle in our Universe, it defines one of the most mysterious concept, time.

That is true in a way, but it operates in such a way, that we have Absolute time and space-- the same for everyone, everywhere. Light is mentioned very early on in Genesis, and has a special place.

The above consideration, alone, proves we have no "Relativity of Simultaneity"--- ie. no basis for Special or General Relativity.

(the mirror tilts at t=2). Preprint Precis of the proof we have an Absolute character to time an...

Gary Stephens

Agree, there is no mechanism and clock to synchronize over different speed, different gravity, and different fields as Einstein assumed. Einstein believed that there is no way to get the same value of time, say 2025/08/01 4:50 pm, in all reference frames in our universe, which indicates the same absolute time as Newton assumed. Thus, he postulated using the different light one observer received to back calculate the original time of the event with respect to the same observer.

Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, this is an ill-defined time synchronization and misaligns the order of events that happened at a distance. This misalignment is fine if the event and the observer are the only correlated events in the entire universe. So even if the observer finds something happened first at his observation, happened later in absolute time doesn't matter because its consequence happened in the observed order for this observer. Einstein believed absolute simultaneity does not exist.

Einstein's view is very problematic for many-body interactions. Say the events have an immediate correlation with other observers nearby and in different or same reference frames, and their ripple effect goes out from their light spheres and each observer received the signal sequentially such that their responses are well delayed over space from the event. Thus, the observer's synchronization time with the event and the other observers over different angles is very different and cannot be synchronized.

In short, and in belief, I can see one thing happens first and the other next, and the observer from a different angle observes opposite order, and thus once we meet, we will debate with each other, which beats the purpose of the original Einstein theory in establishing a universal reference frame for all moving objects and observers.

My suggestion is that not all observers are created equal, and one of the observers has to yield to the other and set one of them as the master reference frame. This reference frame is arbitrarily chosen between the two observers and should both work. But one can be a better choice than the other, such as the geocentric and solarcentric reference frame, and the solar center is a better choice for the solar system.

The proposed beacons over space for an observer in the same reference frame are trying to set an order over space of time and hope this order also agrees with the other observer who did the same rationale. Say I see one event first and the other next but I calculate the distance between the two and conclude they are the same. The other observer observed opposite order and do the calculation and conclude that they happened the same time.

So both me and the other observer reached an agreement even though we are in different spaces and reference frames. We have sent out many beacons to space and only listen to the report from these beacons and ignore what we have observed from a distance.

Jixin Chen Dear Doctor Chen,

I agree with much of what you say. To my mind, one thing that perhaps the tilting-mirror and other demonstrations bring in, are the observers. We can't have a case where each observer witnesses a different reality. Light has to move in such a way, so that we only have one reality, between the different observers. So in a way, it is mankind centric. This would also fit in with the wider picture.

(In other words I don't believe that mankind, and more generally life, and the world are an irrelevancy.)

Science is very keen on that, as evidenced (also to my mind, in error) here :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Edwin_Hubble_was_horrified_that_the_red-shift_meant_the_Heavens_were_being_stretched_out_from_the_EarthWas_the_Biblical_account_right_after_all

Gary Stephens

I agree with you and Edwin's opinion that Einstein's theory is human-centric in the guise of equality among all observers.

Jixin

Jixin Chen Dear Professor Chen,

I think it is the other way around-- as far as I can see (Edwin excluded.)--- perhaps my point got lost in translation. I mean in Einstein's theory, in the twin paradox, for example, we again have two realities-- not just twins at the same place supposedly having different ages, but also the space around each twin would also be from a different time. It would be as if yourself ten minutes ago were in the same room as yourself now. ie. an impossibility (the rooms would look different, and might not be arranged the same).

So, to sum up, a "two realities" theory-- Einstein's theory, is not mankind-centric. A one reality theory is ; we all have a common history and a common present.

Gary Stephens

Yes. Language, no matter how carefully defined, can be interpreted differently, or my language can be the opposite of what I meant. Even math equation can be interpreted differently given different initial conditions and confinements.

What I mean is say in your example the embargo is moving, inside all gas molecules are following and outside the gas molecules are not moving with respect to the outside observer. The speed of light is regulated by all the gas molecules the light passing by whose speed has been measured under similar conditions to be fixed. Thus this value is only valid if the gas molecules along the path stay stationary with respect the observer and any other observer who has a relative motion with these molecules has to be considered as Galilean relativity instead of special relativity.

So inside the train, everything happens as if the train is not moving because all the gases are still with everything else. But outside of the train, there is a speed difference between the gas, glass, and the gas outside, so the light gets out is simply transferring to a speed of light with respect to these outside gas molecules. Whose speed is very different from the speed inside. The transformation of assuming the speed remains the same inside and outside is unnecessary and wrong as well as causing confusion in the twin paradox. The twin paradox is not a paradox if we fill the space between the two planets with gas molecules and each is stationary with respect to the two planets, i.e. a dragged medium theory. This medium can be anything either ether, gas or virtual. But my opinion is it should be virtual, or an extremely low concentration of hydrogen atoms that will never hit the spaceship ship just observing it passing by.

In the above, we have the same light-ray propagating at two different speeds, relative to the end of the carriage, which is impossible.

Preprint On Einstein’s use of the classical addition of velocities (c...

For a physical equation, say y = 2x, Newton suggested to reference the independent variable x to an absolute standard say a clock, a ruler, or a weight in one reference frame say Earth. So x can be 1, 2, 3, 4,... and y is measured on Earth to be 2, 4, 6, 8, ....

Einstein said that this correlation is not true for a moving object and an observer on earth will measure using his own ruler or clock to be y = 2.2, 4.3, 6.4, 8.5 etc. for the same x = 1, 2, 3, 4,... So the equation y = 2x breaks.

The solution he proposed is to change x, so if you measured using your own ruler to be 1, 2, 3, 4,... you change the x to 1.1, 2.15, 3.2, 4.25, ... using a formula and such that the y = 2x still hold.

This is a great thought experiment and great mind practice, but totally wrong in my opinion. You just need to establish a new physical equation on observation for different observers such that y = 2x + bx^2 , y = 2x + cx^2 + d x^3, etc. to correct the difference between observation and the value x you have measured, and don't change the x values you have measured in your own reference frame. That will be easier to follow than changing x.

We can simulate classical particles that show wave-like diffraction pattern in double slits experiment.

(PDF) Visualizing Quantized Particle-Slit Interactions Through a Thought Experiment

Preprint Visualizing Quantized Particle-Slit Interactions Through a T...

From the above simulation, we can conclude that a wave is not needed to generate a wave-like diffraction pattern in the double slits experiment, no wave nature of the particle, no pilot-wave, no media, nothing needed. The only thing needed is the quantized interaction of the particle and the slit.

There have been many clues ignored in the double slits experiments: the slits are way too big and the separations are way too large compared to the wavelength of the light, making pilot-wave theory and wave media or wave light theory very strange to think about such long-distance interactions.

The new spinning particle-slit wall/cavity interaction removes all the spooky part of the double-slit experiments, and I think it is the most sensible answer I have been thinking of for over 30 years.