http://relativelynot.weebly.com/
Greetings,
The above site presents a theory involving light that Stokes apparently had hypothesized in 1848. Since that time, however, the theory has been repeatedly discredited, according to those who did the experiments. Nevertheless, in the above site, I try to show that the Stokes’ hypothesis was not in error. I don’t, however, give any credit to Stokes on the site, because I’ve never read his work.
So there you have it. I have offered an alternative to Einstein. I seem to be pretty much in phase with Petr Beckmann. And, for all I know, all this may be a mere copy of Stokes.
Stokes predated Einstein; Einstein predated Beckmann; Beckmann predated me.
Cheers,
Curt Weinstein
29 January 2014
3/15/14
Now I see that I seem to be more of an echo of Beckmann. Petr Beckmann’s work in Einstein Plus Two on mechanics is summarized below. In my defense, I was distracted by Prof. Beckmann’s examples of how science works. I found some of his examples poorly written, and, thus, I missed critical statements he made; I am sorry. Prof. Beckmann deserves full credit for this alternative theory of the speed of light.
In defense of Beckmann, English is not his first language, and he writes as if we Americans can understand English. Nobody understands anything of importance, unless it is repetitive and very simply written. It has to be simply written. Repeating critical points is necessary.
Book Summary: Sec. 1.2 (My comments are parenthetical, even above.) p27
At one time, the theory was that light traveled at “c” relative to an “all-pervading” “luminoferous” medium, called the ether. Beckmann makes an analogy to sound in air: light in aether is as sound in air.
Later, two forms of the aether were presented. The other one is the entrained aether theory. The entrained aether sticks to the Earth (or whatever the local mass). Light travels at c relative to the entrained aether. Thus, experiments on Earth would yield a constant speed of light because of the entrained aether. (BTW, I use the spelling “aether” whereas Beckmann uses “ether”. I have been accustomed to using “ether” to mean the anesthetic gas.)
Beckmann’s alternative to the second postulate of Einstein (“c” is constant everywhere) is written as such:
“… the velocity of light is constant with respect to the local gravitational field through which it propagates.”
He goes on to state:
“Alternatively, we may think of light as a disturbance of the gravitational field itself (something like sound, which is a disturbance of a pressure field)…”
He notes that there is no evidence that his words present a physical reality.
(Hey, I like them; I like them a lot. I note that you don’t need evidence, if it is correct. Somebody else will find the evidence.)
(p28)
The practical side of Ockham’s Razor: “when two theories become incompatible … , we sacrifice the simpler one… .” The more complicated one gives us snob appeal, a pay-off from our greater investment in learning. (Thus, Galilean Relativity, following Einstein Relativity, is something to sneeze at; Beckmann dismantles much of Einstein’s [Special or General] Relativity and gives us nothing new to hang our hat on. It is too simple, unless, of course, you like getting answers simply.)
(I should point out that eventually Einstein didn’t believe Special Relativity – globally there is acceleration everywhere; so it doesn’t work; not even in his falling elevator [more on the elevator later: ok, the frequency of light in various directions tells the passenger that he is accelerating -- more complicated than I had originally thought] – although he did believe General Relativity. Special Relativity can easily be shown to be false. General Relativity, however, changes the geometry of the world – not to mention “time”. Einstein dumps gravity, using “his” new geometry. It seems to work, but there is no reason for it. Give me that old fashioned geometry; it’s good enough for me. OK, I have to deal with gravity – I’ll live with that.)
1.3.7 The Michelson-Gale Experiment of 1925
Einstein’s theory and the Aether theory each explain the speed of light from a moving source. So far, in Beckmann’s book, Einstein’s theory has only been tested by a gravitational-aether reference frame. So, we can’t differentiate between them (easily).
P42: “There remains, however, a possible ambiguity: the earth’s gravitational field moves with the earth as it travels along its orbit; but does it also turn with the earth about its axis, or does the earth revolve within its own field?” On the rotating Earth, to what do we find the speed of light is constant? Does the Earth rotate within its own gravitational field? (If the gravity rotated with the Earth, the gravity field would have to rotate at faster and faster linear speeds, as the angular velocity is held constant and the radius increased. But there are theories that gravity travels much faster than light; so maybe the field does rotate at faster and faster linear speeds, until it reaches some maximum. But I don’t think “so.”)
With respect to what is the speed of light constant on a rotating body? Under the hypothesis that gravity is the aether, we would expect that gravity “emitted” is not entrained. (Please excuse the use of “entrained” for two different purposes – stuck to the vicinity of the Earth vs. rotates with the Earth. So far, we are thinking gravity is stuck to the vicinity, but gravity does not rotate with the Earth.)
Quote from p28-29, parenthetical comments and the bolding of text are mine.
The assumption that the velocity (speed) of light is constant with respect to the local gravitational field is one that may raise hackles as a conceptual formulation, but as an experimental fact it is not at all absurd:
First, it satisfies the relativity principle without attempting to redefine space and time. …
Second, there is a rarely noted, but nevertheless firm, precedent of an electromagnetic quantity that depends on a velocity with respect to uncharged matter (the next parentheses are part of the quote) (the source of gravitation). It is the magnetic field, not as it appears in thought experiments by this or that theory, but as it is measures in the macroscopic world. It is too weak to be measured unless the electric field of the moving charges is first neutralized, as in the case when a current flows in an overall neutral conductor. This is no new assumption, but a consequence of perfectly orthodox (next parenthesis are in the quote) (including Einsteinian) electromagnetics, as will be pointed out in more detail in Sec. 1.4.
Third, this assumption cannot experimentally contradict the Einstein theory, for no observer or measuring instrument has ever traveled through a gravitational field with a velocity (speed) comparable to that of light – certainly not in uniform, rectilinear motion. (Rotational motion, e.g., Sagnac-type, experiments do not differentiate between Einstein’s General Theory and this gravitational assumption.) …
Beckmann argues that purely optical evidence is (1) more easily obtainable and (2) less dependent on possibly flawed conclusions. Although he concedes, optical evidence is not as accurate as other (error-prone) methods may be. (p29) (Hmm, sounds like one of those Uncertainty Principles.)
Purely Optical Evidence, Sect. 1.3
Here Beckmann brings evidence to differentiate, as best as possible, between four competing theories:
1.3.1 (Stellar) Aberration
Bradley discovers stellar aberration from a star of the Dragon. Each of those theories can explain the effect! (There is no differential advantage.) 1.3.3 Fizeau’s and Airy’s experiments are instructive. Fizeau had conducted a water-flowing experiment, which is reminiscent of Hoek’s famous experiment, except it preceded it. (Ha, Fizeau came first.) Airy performed Fresnel’s suggested experiment; repeat the aberration experiment with the telescope tubes filled with water! Airy expected an increase in the aberration angle, proportional to n2. (The index of refraction is represented by n). But Fresnel (at the time of the experiment was already dead) expected no change in the aberration angle (which may explain why he didn’t conduct the experiment – negative event experiments are always suspect when conducted by the person predicting the nothing). He reasoned that the coefficient of drag through the stationary ether would increase the velocity of light and the water would slow the velocity of light, so that the angle of aberration would be independent of the index of refraction! Airy found no change in the aberration, thus confirming Fresnel’s concept of an elastic, partially entrained, compressible ether. (As far as I can see, “elastic” and “compressible” mean the same thing, unless you want to have negative elasticity mean compressible. But in my mind, stretching something and compressing something usually mean the thing, has the same properties. OK, cement takes compressive forces but not “elastic” forces – but that’s a technicality.)
Airy’s experiment is consistent with the gravity hypothesis.
1.3.4 Objections to the Ballistic Theory
We are not considering the ballistic theory; however, Beckmann hides his evidence for gravity, as the aether, in all sorts of masks. Suffice to say that arguments from double stars were said to refute the ballistic theory. Beckmann gives the evidence, and then tells us it is faulty; but it is irrelevant to my purposes.
1.3.2 Fresnel’s Coefficient of Drag
He derived his results from a compressible aether that is partially dragged by motion. But Hoek had derived it earlier, without referring to the ether! (Apparently, I am using this spelling, i.e., “ether”, when I talk of the universal ether, while I use “aether” when I talk of the entrained aether, especially gravity.)
Hoek sent light through air and glass (a slower speed of light) and got a fringe (different speeds). When he reversed the apparatus, the fringe didn’t move! Thus, the difference in speed of light was not dependent on the motion of the Earth through the Cosmos. Beckmann refined the experiment, for instance, using laser beams, and got the same result – no change in the fringe shift. Thus, Hoek and later Beckmann each found:
∆T = change in time, the fringe shift, c = speed of light, v = velocity (rotational) of Earth, l = length of glass rod (also equal to length of the parallel air passage), n = refractive index of the glass = c/cmedium; the apparatus is set up for East-West light traveling:
∆T = l / (c/n - ∆v – v) – l/(c+v) , and in reverse that would be West-East, the equation is changed by inserting (-v) for v. Since there is no fringe shift, the two ∆Ts (West to East vs. East to West) must be equal – at least approximately (to the best of sight).
This (strongly) suggests that the difference in the speed of light (paths of air or water) with and against the Earth (when on Earth) is the same. Thus, the speed of the Earth through the ether is negligible. Or perhaps, the speed of the ether across the Earth is negligible. (!) Of course, with gravity as the ether, this presents no problem.
1.3.5 Michelson-Morley Experiment
This experiment was said to disprove the aether. “It did no such thing...” (p39) Even according to Michelson, it did no such thing. However, in 1924, Tomaschek repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment with starlight, which supported both Einstein and the entrained-ether theory. (Remember, we are calling the “entrained aether” gravity.) Beckmann notes that the experiment supports all the theories except the unentrained or partially entrained ether. (Gravity is still safe, as is Einstein’s Second.)
The agreement between Einstein’s Second Postulate (that the speed of light is the same everywhere) and the Aether-gravity Postulate is not surprising since (most of) the experiments were done on Earth. The speed of light from Jupiter’s moon is an exception. Possibly, the aberration of star light from Dacron is another exception.
A new experiment is conducted. Does the aether-gravity follow the spinning Earth’s gravity or does the Earth spin within its own aether-gravity? (We are thinking that the Earth spins within its own gravity – once gravity is emitted, it is “free” from its source.) The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 addressed the issue of Aether-gravity.
“As we have seen in the case of Hoek’s experiment, the use of a moving material medium thwarts the intent of any experiment to measure a change of the velocity of light because the effect of motion is exactly canceled by the effect of refraction – that is the essence of the drag coefficient, and that is how Hoek derived it from his experiment.” (OK, now you know why I have to translate Beckmann. At 18 words in a sentence, half the readers are lost but at 60 words?) The effect of motion is exactly compensated by refraction – even for Airy’s experiment, which uses aberration. P43 Hence, the Michelson-Gale experiment was conducted in air (almost vacuum).
Conducted in the Northern hemisphere, a global-fitting “square” was created. Thus, the northern path (parallel to the horizon) was slightly shorter than its corresponding southern parallel path. The angular velocity of the northern path is less than the southern path, since both are fixed to Earth. The results were consistent with the aether-gravity. P44> The results were also consistent with (not Special but) General Relativity, because of the difference in relativistic time. “There is, nevertheless, one significant difference between the two explanations, and that is that…” the simple equation “…follows from the Galileian principle of in a few lines of high-school algebra, whereas Einstein’s general theory does it with multidimensional complex tensors in space-time and non-Euclidean geodesics.”
That is the genius of Einstein. Confronted with a complex problem, he complexly solves it, according to the genius that he is. A half century later, Beckmann learns Einstein’s results and offers a simpler solution. But isn’t the discovery of a simpler solution a mark of genius too?
Wouldn’t it be better to investigate gravity – why should light travel by means of gravity? Now that’s a problem of interest for physics. Most often light comes from electrons in atoms (molecules). Sometimes, light comes from accelerating electrons outside of the atoms. Does light ever come from accelerating protons? (I was absent the day they talked about that in physics class. I’d guess yes.) What about accelerating other particles – do they emit light? Why does acceleration of an electron emit light, but the acceleration of an atom not emit light? OK, maybe the atomic parts emit light, but the light doesn’t escape for us to “see” it. How does an electron know that it is accelerating? Relative to what is it accelerating? Is acceleration found relative to the aether (I mean gravity)? If we accelerated an electron (how?) outside of a gravity field (how, how?) would it emit radiation?
1.4 Magnetic Force and the Gravitational Field
F = q (E + v x B): force on one charge (q1, v1, etc.) in the field of another (stationary charge, q2)
Usual notation, vectors are bolded, F=force, q=charge, E=electric field, v=velocity, B=magnetic field.
If we have q2 move at v2: B = (v2 X Ec)/c2 , E is the irrotational component (from Maxwell as quoted in Beckmann)
Beckmann is using “q” as a scalar with instantaneous reach (an approximation). Ignoring the small gravitational force and the small magnetic force, he continues.
The two equations above are the same that are used in the Einstein theory (which one: Special or General? OK, must be General, since I know Special very well.), but But BUT with this difference: According to Einstein v (v1, v2, etc.) are measured relative to the observer. According to Beckmann, the v’s are measured relative to “the aether”.
Beckmann: “The magnetic force between moving charges is so small compared with the electric force between them that (his parenthetical word next) (today) it is not measureable unless the latter is neutralized.”
Therefore, to make the magnetic force detectable, we must “remove” the electric force. (Ah, yes, but if we remove the source of the electric force, there will be no magnetic force.) The trick is to use a “wire.” In the wire, the negative units (electrons) travel through a set of positive units (the ionized atoms); therefore, the electric field is more or less neutralized. But you yet have the magnetic field from the traveling electrons.
Beckmann argues when we make the electric fields cancel (approximately) the dominating field, which defines “here now”, i.e., the ether, is gravity. Beckmann argues that gravity is the ether, even for the magnetic field.
A side note, if you please. If the charges are accelerating, the arguments above do not hold. It holds for constant velocity.
P49: “Both rules are still respectable physics, but once we define velocities with respect to the field, not with the respect to an observer, we begin to obtain heretical results, as in the following example.” (Heretical according to what theory?) Beckmann points out that the magnetic force on a stationary charge is zero even to another moving charge. According to the relativity principle, if you chose a frame of reference where each charge is moving at half the total rate, all of a sudden the charges experience a magnetic force (in addition to the electric force). That puts a damper on relativity. There is a preferred frame of reference – perhaps that of the “aether” (gravity). p49: “Thus, the original effect is too small to be measured, and trying to increase it will eliminate it.” The inaccuracy of orthodox eletromagnetics yet hides.
P50: Does common-sense relativity suggest a charge that experiences a force when it travels through a magnetic field should then not also experience a force when a magnetic field travels past it? According to Einstein’s relativity, can there be a difference between those two cases? No, but Einstein’s relativity dances to achieve the equivalence. That is, Einstein’s relativity distorts both space and time, and the fields of both electric and magnetic are tied to the observer and not to the charges producing them! Beckmann’s theory keeps both the electric and magnetic fields independent of any observer; the relevant velocity is that of the charge in the field of the other. P50: The relativity principle is satisfied automatically without alerting space-time (space and time). The charge moving through a field yields the same results as a field moving past a charge – that is relativity. Yet, Einstein’s predictions are followed, just with a simpler set of rules.
How to add three numbers:
One Way:
N1*n2*n3/(N2*n3) + N1*n2*n3/(N1*n3) + N1*n2*n3/(N1*n2) = sum
Other way:
N1 + n2 + n3 = sum
“One way” uses the three-number identity (N1*n2*n3) to get the answer. This is very important!
“Other way” manages to get the same answer, somehow.
Hmm… what does that nonsense have to do with Einstein vs. Beckmann? Look, I like Einstein. He was a genius. He did that Bose-Einstein Statistics; he did that light on photo-active metal thing; his Special Relativity started on the correct path; his General Relativity is probably correct and great for all geniuses to use. OK, for the rest of us, we’ll use Beckmann’s approach. Besides, I like gravity.
Choose One of the following:
1. Light travels through gravity at c, relative to the gravity.
2. Light travels through empty space at c, relative to everything and anything.
Nothing travels at c relative to everything.
Greetings,
The above site presents a theory involving light that Stokes apparently had hypothesized in 1848. Since that time, however, the theory has been repeatedly discredited, according to those who did the experiments. Nevertheless, in the above site, I try to show that the Stokes’ hypothesis was not in error. I don’t, however, give any credit to Stokes on the site, because I’ve never read his work.
So there you have it. I have offered an alternative to Einstein. I seem to be pretty much in phase with Petr Beckmann. And, for all I know, all this may be a mere copy of Stokes.
Stokes predated Einstein; Einstein predated Beckmann; Beckmann predated me.
Cheers,
Curt Weinstein
29 January 2014
3/15/14
Now I see that I seem to be more of an echo of Beckmann. Petr Beckmann’s work in Einstein Plus Two on mechanics is summarized below. In my defense, I was distracted by Prof. Beckmann’s examples of how science works. I found some of his examples poorly written, and, thus, I missed critical statements he made; I am sorry. Prof. Beckmann deserves full credit for this alternative theory of the speed of light.
In defense of Beckmann, English is not his first language, and he writes as if we Americans can understand English. Nobody understands anything of importance, unless it is repetitive and very simply written. It has to be simply written. Repeating critical points is necessary.
- From the cover, here is a brief history of Petr Beckmann. Born in Prague 1924, he received an M. Sc. and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Prague Technical University. In 1962, he received a Dr. Sc. from the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. In 1963, he defected to the USA, and became a citizen, teaching at the University of Colorado. He has published over 60 scientific papers. He died on 3 August 1993.
- From the cover: Leigh Page, a professor of mathematical physics at Yale, showed that Maxwell’s equations could be derived by applying the Lorentz transformation to Coulomb’s law. While still supporting Einstein’s theory, this new result meant that the Einstein theory stood on a single law. Beckmann has suggested, however, that Einstein’s theory is due to the Lorentz transformation compensating for “inaccuracies in an inverse-square law.” Thus, Beckmann proposes that an arbitrary observer’s velocity is not important. Rather, he suggests, the Lorentz force and the Maxwell equations become valid when viewed from the velocity of the traversed field. The result is a theory that satisfies the relativity principle without having to distort space and time.
Book Summary: Sec. 1.2 (My comments are parenthetical, even above.) p27
At one time, the theory was that light traveled at “c” relative to an “all-pervading” “luminoferous” medium, called the ether. Beckmann makes an analogy to sound in air: light in aether is as sound in air.
Later, two forms of the aether were presented. The other one is the entrained aether theory. The entrained aether sticks to the Earth (or whatever the local mass). Light travels at c relative to the entrained aether. Thus, experiments on Earth would yield a constant speed of light because of the entrained aether. (BTW, I use the spelling “aether” whereas Beckmann uses “ether”. I have been accustomed to using “ether” to mean the anesthetic gas.)
Beckmann’s alternative to the second postulate of Einstein (“c” is constant everywhere) is written as such:
“… the velocity of light is constant with respect to the local gravitational field through which it propagates.”
He goes on to state:
“Alternatively, we may think of light as a disturbance of the gravitational field itself (something like sound, which is a disturbance of a pressure field)…”
He notes that there is no evidence that his words present a physical reality.
(Hey, I like them; I like them a lot. I note that you don’t need evidence, if it is correct. Somebody else will find the evidence.)
(p28)
- The assumption that the speed of light is constant with respect to the local gravity field leads to Galilean relativity. (!)
- The bending of light in a gravitational field suggests that the speed of light varies with gravitational intensity. (! & I think someone found this on Earth and discarded the result.)
- Experimental evidence exists that light remains constant with respect to the gravitational field, but not respect to the Earth rotating in it. (! & Foucault’s Pendulum)
The practical side of Ockham’s Razor: “when two theories become incompatible … , we sacrifice the simpler one… .” The more complicated one gives us snob appeal, a pay-off from our greater investment in learning. (Thus, Galilean Relativity, following Einstein Relativity, is something to sneeze at; Beckmann dismantles much of Einstein’s [Special or General] Relativity and gives us nothing new to hang our hat on. It is too simple, unless, of course, you like getting answers simply.)
(I should point out that eventually Einstein didn’t believe Special Relativity – globally there is acceleration everywhere; so it doesn’t work; not even in his falling elevator [more on the elevator later: ok, the frequency of light in various directions tells the passenger that he is accelerating -- more complicated than I had originally thought] – although he did believe General Relativity. Special Relativity can easily be shown to be false. General Relativity, however, changes the geometry of the world – not to mention “time”. Einstein dumps gravity, using “his” new geometry. It seems to work, but there is no reason for it. Give me that old fashioned geometry; it’s good enough for me. OK, I have to deal with gravity – I’ll live with that.)
1.3.7 The Michelson-Gale Experiment of 1925
Einstein’s theory and the Aether theory each explain the speed of light from a moving source. So far, in Beckmann’s book, Einstein’s theory has only been tested by a gravitational-aether reference frame. So, we can’t differentiate between them (easily).
P42: “There remains, however, a possible ambiguity: the earth’s gravitational field moves with the earth as it travels along its orbit; but does it also turn with the earth about its axis, or does the earth revolve within its own field?” On the rotating Earth, to what do we find the speed of light is constant? Does the Earth rotate within its own gravitational field? (If the gravity rotated with the Earth, the gravity field would have to rotate at faster and faster linear speeds, as the angular velocity is held constant and the radius increased. But there are theories that gravity travels much faster than light; so maybe the field does rotate at faster and faster linear speeds, until it reaches some maximum. But I don’t think “so.”)
With respect to what is the speed of light constant on a rotating body? Under the hypothesis that gravity is the aether, we would expect that gravity “emitted” is not entrained. (Please excuse the use of “entrained” for two different purposes – stuck to the vicinity of the Earth vs. rotates with the Earth. So far, we are thinking gravity is stuck to the vicinity, but gravity does not rotate with the Earth.)
Quote from p28-29, parenthetical comments and the bolding of text are mine.
The assumption that the velocity (speed) of light is constant with respect to the local gravitational field is one that may raise hackles as a conceptual formulation, but as an experimental fact it is not at all absurd:
First, it satisfies the relativity principle without attempting to redefine space and time. …
Second, there is a rarely noted, but nevertheless firm, precedent of an electromagnetic quantity that depends on a velocity with respect to uncharged matter (the next parentheses are part of the quote) (the source of gravitation). It is the magnetic field, not as it appears in thought experiments by this or that theory, but as it is measures in the macroscopic world. It is too weak to be measured unless the electric field of the moving charges is first neutralized, as in the case when a current flows in an overall neutral conductor. This is no new assumption, but a consequence of perfectly orthodox (next parenthesis are in the quote) (including Einsteinian) electromagnetics, as will be pointed out in more detail in Sec. 1.4.
Third, this assumption cannot experimentally contradict the Einstein theory, for no observer or measuring instrument has ever traveled through a gravitational field with a velocity (speed) comparable to that of light – certainly not in uniform, rectilinear motion. (Rotational motion, e.g., Sagnac-type, experiments do not differentiate between Einstein’s General Theory and this gravitational assumption.) …
Beckmann argues that purely optical evidence is (1) more easily obtainable and (2) less dependent on possibly flawed conclusions. Although he concedes, optical evidence is not as accurate as other (error-prone) methods may be. (p29) (Hmm, sounds like one of those Uncertainty Principles.)
Purely Optical Evidence, Sect. 1.3
Here Beckmann brings evidence to differentiate, as best as possible, between four competing theories:
- Ether (universal)
- Ballistic (as in shooting a bullet)
- Gravitational (his and my favorite, the so-called entrained aether)
- Einstein’s Second Postulate (light travels at “c” relative to everything that isn’t accelerating)
1.3.1 (Stellar) Aberration
Bradley discovers stellar aberration from a star of the Dragon. Each of those theories can explain the effect! (There is no differential advantage.) 1.3.3 Fizeau’s and Airy’s experiments are instructive. Fizeau had conducted a water-flowing experiment, which is reminiscent of Hoek’s famous experiment, except it preceded it. (Ha, Fizeau came first.) Airy performed Fresnel’s suggested experiment; repeat the aberration experiment with the telescope tubes filled with water! Airy expected an increase in the aberration angle, proportional to n2. (The index of refraction is represented by n). But Fresnel (at the time of the experiment was already dead) expected no change in the aberration angle (which may explain why he didn’t conduct the experiment – negative event experiments are always suspect when conducted by the person predicting the nothing). He reasoned that the coefficient of drag through the stationary ether would increase the velocity of light and the water would slow the velocity of light, so that the angle of aberration would be independent of the index of refraction! Airy found no change in the aberration, thus confirming Fresnel’s concept of an elastic, partially entrained, compressible ether. (As far as I can see, “elastic” and “compressible” mean the same thing, unless you want to have negative elasticity mean compressible. But in my mind, stretching something and compressing something usually mean the thing, has the same properties. OK, cement takes compressive forces but not “elastic” forces – but that’s a technicality.)
Airy’s experiment is consistent with the gravity hypothesis.
1.3.4 Objections to the Ballistic Theory
We are not considering the ballistic theory; however, Beckmann hides his evidence for gravity, as the aether, in all sorts of masks. Suffice to say that arguments from double stars were said to refute the ballistic theory. Beckmann gives the evidence, and then tells us it is faulty; but it is irrelevant to my purposes.
1.3.2 Fresnel’s Coefficient of Drag
He derived his results from a compressible aether that is partially dragged by motion. But Hoek had derived it earlier, without referring to the ether! (Apparently, I am using this spelling, i.e., “ether”, when I talk of the universal ether, while I use “aether” when I talk of the entrained aether, especially gravity.)
Hoek sent light through air and glass (a slower speed of light) and got a fringe (different speeds). When he reversed the apparatus, the fringe didn’t move! Thus, the difference in speed of light was not dependent on the motion of the Earth through the Cosmos. Beckmann refined the experiment, for instance, using laser beams, and got the same result – no change in the fringe shift. Thus, Hoek and later Beckmann each found:
∆T = change in time, the fringe shift, c = speed of light, v = velocity (rotational) of Earth, l = length of glass rod (also equal to length of the parallel air passage), n = refractive index of the glass = c/cmedium; the apparatus is set up for East-West light traveling:
∆T = l / (c/n - ∆v – v) – l/(c+v) , and in reverse that would be West-East, the equation is changed by inserting (-v) for v. Since there is no fringe shift, the two ∆Ts (West to East vs. East to West) must be equal – at least approximately (to the best of sight).
This (strongly) suggests that the difference in the speed of light (paths of air or water) with and against the Earth (when on Earth) is the same. Thus, the speed of the Earth through the ether is negligible. Or perhaps, the speed of the ether across the Earth is negligible. (!) Of course, with gravity as the ether, this presents no problem.
1.3.5 Michelson-Morley Experiment
This experiment was said to disprove the aether. “It did no such thing...” (p39) Even according to Michelson, it did no such thing. However, in 1924, Tomaschek repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment with starlight, which supported both Einstein and the entrained-ether theory. (Remember, we are calling the “entrained aether” gravity.) Beckmann notes that the experiment supports all the theories except the unentrained or partially entrained ether. (Gravity is still safe, as is Einstein’s Second.)
The agreement between Einstein’s Second Postulate (that the speed of light is the same everywhere) and the Aether-gravity Postulate is not surprising since (most of) the experiments were done on Earth. The speed of light from Jupiter’s moon is an exception. Possibly, the aberration of star light from Dacron is another exception.
A new experiment is conducted. Does the aether-gravity follow the spinning Earth’s gravity or does the Earth spin within its own aether-gravity? (We are thinking that the Earth spins within its own gravity – once gravity is emitted, it is “free” from its source.) The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 addressed the issue of Aether-gravity.
“As we have seen in the case of Hoek’s experiment, the use of a moving material medium thwarts the intent of any experiment to measure a change of the velocity of light because the effect of motion is exactly canceled by the effect of refraction – that is the essence of the drag coefficient, and that is how Hoek derived it from his experiment.” (OK, now you know why I have to translate Beckmann. At 18 words in a sentence, half the readers are lost but at 60 words?) The effect of motion is exactly compensated by refraction – even for Airy’s experiment, which uses aberration. P43 Hence, the Michelson-Gale experiment was conducted in air (almost vacuum).
Conducted in the Northern hemisphere, a global-fitting “square” was created. Thus, the northern path (parallel to the horizon) was slightly shorter than its corresponding southern parallel path. The angular velocity of the northern path is less than the southern path, since both are fixed to Earth. The results were consistent with the aether-gravity. P44> The results were also consistent with (not Special but) General Relativity, because of the difference in relativistic time. “There is, nevertheless, one significant difference between the two explanations, and that is that…” the simple equation “…follows from the Galileian principle of in a few lines of high-school algebra, whereas Einstein’s general theory does it with multidimensional complex tensors in space-time and non-Euclidean geodesics.”
That is the genius of Einstein. Confronted with a complex problem, he complexly solves it, according to the genius that he is. A half century later, Beckmann learns Einstein’s results and offers a simpler solution. But isn’t the discovery of a simpler solution a mark of genius too?
Wouldn’t it be better to investigate gravity – why should light travel by means of gravity? Now that’s a problem of interest for physics. Most often light comes from electrons in atoms (molecules). Sometimes, light comes from accelerating electrons outside of the atoms. Does light ever come from accelerating protons? (I was absent the day they talked about that in physics class. I’d guess yes.) What about accelerating other particles – do they emit light? Why does acceleration of an electron emit light, but the acceleration of an atom not emit light? OK, maybe the atomic parts emit light, but the light doesn’t escape for us to “see” it. How does an electron know that it is accelerating? Relative to what is it accelerating? Is acceleration found relative to the aether (I mean gravity)? If we accelerated an electron (how?) outside of a gravity field (how, how?) would it emit radiation?
1.4 Magnetic Force and the Gravitational Field
F = q (E + v x B): force on one charge (q1, v1, etc.) in the field of another (stationary charge, q2)
Usual notation, vectors are bolded, F=force, q=charge, E=electric field, v=velocity, B=magnetic field.
If we have q2 move at v2: B = (v2 X Ec)/c2 , E is the irrotational component (from Maxwell as quoted in Beckmann)
Beckmann is using “q” as a scalar with instantaneous reach (an approximation). Ignoring the small gravitational force and the small magnetic force, he continues.
The two equations above are the same that are used in the Einstein theory (which one: Special or General? OK, must be General, since I know Special very well.), but But BUT with this difference: According to Einstein v (v1, v2, etc.) are measured relative to the observer. According to Beckmann, the v’s are measured relative to “the aether”.
Beckmann: “The magnetic force between moving charges is so small compared with the electric force between them that (his parenthetical word next) (today) it is not measureable unless the latter is neutralized.”
Therefore, to make the magnetic force detectable, we must “remove” the electric force. (Ah, yes, but if we remove the source of the electric force, there will be no magnetic force.) The trick is to use a “wire.” In the wire, the negative units (electrons) travel through a set of positive units (the ionized atoms); therefore, the electric field is more or less neutralized. But you yet have the magnetic field from the traveling electrons.
Beckmann argues when we make the electric fields cancel (approximately) the dominating field, which defines “here now”, i.e., the ether, is gravity. Beckmann argues that gravity is the ether, even for the magnetic field.
A side note, if you please. If the charges are accelerating, the arguments above do not hold. It holds for constant velocity.
P49: “Both rules are still respectable physics, but once we define velocities with respect to the field, not with the respect to an observer, we begin to obtain heretical results, as in the following example.” (Heretical according to what theory?) Beckmann points out that the magnetic force on a stationary charge is zero even to another moving charge. According to the relativity principle, if you chose a frame of reference where each charge is moving at half the total rate, all of a sudden the charges experience a magnetic force (in addition to the electric force). That puts a damper on relativity. There is a preferred frame of reference – perhaps that of the “aether” (gravity). p49: “Thus, the original effect is too small to be measured, and trying to increase it will eliminate it.” The inaccuracy of orthodox eletromagnetics yet hides.
P50: Does common-sense relativity suggest a charge that experiences a force when it travels through a magnetic field should then not also experience a force when a magnetic field travels past it? According to Einstein’s relativity, can there be a difference between those two cases? No, but Einstein’s relativity dances to achieve the equivalence. That is, Einstein’s relativity distorts both space and time, and the fields of both electric and magnetic are tied to the observer and not to the charges producing them! Beckmann’s theory keeps both the electric and magnetic fields independent of any observer; the relevant velocity is that of the charge in the field of the other. P50: The relativity principle is satisfied automatically without alerting space-time (space and time). The charge moving through a field yields the same results as a field moving past a charge – that is relativity. Yet, Einstein’s predictions are followed, just with a simpler set of rules.
How to add three numbers:
One Way:
N1*n2*n3/(N2*n3) + N1*n2*n3/(N1*n3) + N1*n2*n3/(N1*n2) = sum
Other way:
N1 + n2 + n3 = sum
“One way” uses the three-number identity (N1*n2*n3) to get the answer. This is very important!
“Other way” manages to get the same answer, somehow.
Hmm… what does that nonsense have to do with Einstein vs. Beckmann? Look, I like Einstein. He was a genius. He did that Bose-Einstein Statistics; he did that light on photo-active metal thing; his Special Relativity started on the correct path; his General Relativity is probably correct and great for all geniuses to use. OK, for the rest of us, we’ll use Beckmann’s approach. Besides, I like gravity.
Choose One of the following:
1. Light travels through gravity at c, relative to the gravity.
2. Light travels through empty space at c, relative to everything and anything.
Nothing travels at c relative to everything.