Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Can the Principle of Constant Light Speed be Proved by the Michelson-Morley Experiment?
Please read
http://api.ning.com/files/Hark62hE1uMt2uQHmYnIptCnoMSBmVwR4Gsc1ONqXXZnJOalLs3GDgRoF6fc35dYyOu1ooXfqn0SxtL*iXC4F9NTsZXu-ADT/Apaper.pdf

This paper has just been accepted by GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS. Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney, an editor in GED, said to me “It is understandable, and reasonable to publish in GED. Please be aware that GED pages are filled through year 2011,So this will appear in 2012, unless someone withdraws something before then.”
This paper was contributed to the American Physical Society(APS), and reviewed by the editors and reviewers of PRL, PRD and PRA successively, but they can’t point out any flaws. However, they still rejected it for criticizing my past paper which has been published.
They know that this paper will end special theory of relativity and rewrite physics textbook, therefore, they reject it even if there isn’t any flaws.
My contribution experience is in http://authors.aps.org/cgi-bin/wvman?acc=LY11626&auth=Huang. The editor of PRL rejected my paper. I asked him why, but he didn’t answer. So I contributed it to PRD. The editor of PRD believed it would be more suitable for PRA, so PRD turned to PRA.
Gordon W.F. Drake, the editor of PRA reviewed my paper seriously. He can't answer the little questions in the paper, and didn’t point out any mistakes or give any reasons, but my paper was still rejected finally. He let me appeal to Gene D. Sprouse, chief editor of APS, and asked him to make the decision.
After 70 days research, Gene D. Sprouse appointed Mikhail V. Fedorov to review my paper and give the rejecting reasons. Then Mikhail V. Fedorov rejected my paper with a very funny excuse, which was “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics”. But “Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity” has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.” But as for the paper “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” which I wanted to publish, he did’t give any comments.
I reminded that it was Mikhail V. Fedorov’s oversight. He didn’t make any comments on the paper I wanted to publish. So Gordon W.F. Drake asked Gene D. Sprouse to judge again. But Gene D. Sprouse said he reviewed it “responsibly and fairly”. Don’t you believe it is the truth? Probably you don’t believe, but it is the truth.
The reason why they rejected my paper was that it could change people’s opinion about the special theory of relativity. They didn’t like to see this happen.
Followed is my communication with APS. It would be easier for you to know my experience, help you understand my paper.
Please read my paper as well as the record of communication with the editors of APS. I think you will be interested in it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Huang,
Your manuscript has been considered. We regret to inform you that we have concluded that it is not suitable for publication in Physical Review Letters.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Malenfant
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: prl@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
The above manuscript which you submitted to Physical Review D has been examined by the editors. It is their opinion that, in view of its subject matter, your paper would be more suitable for consideration in Physical Review A.
However, we regret to inform you that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the Physical Review.
As a general remark, the special theory of relativity (STR) has survived for a century, despite many challenges based on alleged discrepancies in its application, or on apparent inconsistencies in its accepted interpretation. This historical background makes the highest demands on the clarity and rigor of submitted papers that find faults in STR or seek alternative structures for its basic transformations, if they are to be considered as serious contenders for publication in a scientific journal. In particular, they need to provide unambiguous evidence of failings in the theory and provide clear-cut identifications of past or future measurements that display, or have convincing chances of displaying, shortcomings in STR. Proposals for structural changes in the basic transformations need to show a definite physical impact resulting from novel predictions of observable effects.
Authors must justify publication by including a clear discussion of the motivation for the new speculation, with reasons for introducing new concepts. In addition, plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge.
Adequate references must be made to previous work on the subject, including pertinent parts of the extensive body of experimental evidence which supports the STR. Among such, we should like to call your special attention to the recent article by Pospelov and Romalis, "Lorentz Invariance on Trial," in PHYSICS TODAY, July 2004, p. 40.
Your paper does not satisfy the criteria described above. Therefore, with regret, we cannot consider it for publication in our journal.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
Email: pra@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://pra.aps.org/
and
Rashmi Ray
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review D
Email: prd@ridge.aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prd.aps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray,
Many thanks for your mail of 29th December 2008, informing me my manuscript was not suitable for publication in PRA in time and giving me specific reasons meanwhile.
I take this opportunity to discuss several natural phenomena with Dr. Drake and Dr. Ray. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but can it prove that the sun revolves around the earth? In addition, stone falls faster than feather, but can it prove that the heavy object falls faster than the light one? I deem that you will say it can not. Because Copernicus and Galileo have told us that such a cognition was false.
If the viewpoint of Copernicus and Galileo were not authorized in the scientific community, do you agree with them?
It’s mostly said that relativistic has been proved by many experimental evidences and there is no clear evidence to suggest it is wrong. For example, when the quality of high-energy particle increases, its lifetime prolongs. That is considered as one of the experimental proofs to prove relativistic. However, Lorenz's theory can explain these phenomena, why these phenomena are not proofs to prove Lorenz's theory? If there were not relativistic, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove Lorenz's theory. What do you think about it?
For example, Ives and Stilwell proved that movement would result in slower time by experiment in 1938. But Ives opposed relativistic all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.
In addition, Michelson-Morley experiment is considered as another proof to testify the relativistic. However, both Michelson and Morley didn’t agree with the viewpoint. They deemed that the experiment could be explained by theory that the earth drags the ethers on its surface.
The differences between the relativistic and Lorenz’s theory are principle of constancy of light velocity and principle of relativity. Only when experimental evidence testifies the two principles, can it be considered as the proof to prove the relativistic.
It has been pointed out that there is none to test the speed of the same light in different inertial systems, among the present experimental evidences which are considered as the proofs to testify principle of constancy of light velocity.
Please consider carefully about the circle fiber issue put forward in my paper. If the speed of light is invariant, will the results be consistent when we analyze it in different reference systems? The persons who support the relativistic can’t explain the issue, including old professors who have taught relativity for several decades. Moreover, the other issues and analysis put forward in my paper are supported by many people. I think if you read my paper and think my questions and analysis carefully, you will consider my questions and analysis fully of novelties, although you may not agree with me.
I think problems independently and put forward my own viewpoint all along. I once put forward a new theory and deduced such formulas in relativity as quality-speed formula, time-speed formula and mass-energy formula, only with two or three steps. It’s much simpler than the deduction process of relativity. It’s my theory that can easily explain GZK knotty problems of cosmic ray. The theory was published in the USA this year and you can read on line: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf, with reviewer’s attitude as follow:
“Use neutrosophy to analyze and remould the special theory of relativity by Huang Xinwei
This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”
Of course, that paper can not represent this one and the reviewer can not represent reviewers of PRA either.
In the end, I beg for your patient and careful consideration on my manuscript. I believe you will change your former attitude.
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
I understand your feelings of disappointment on reading my previous letter of rejection. However, it is important to remember that the special theory of relativity is now over 100 years old, and it has been intensively studied by many authors since then. It has also been subjected to a large number of high-precision experimental tests, and no defect has been found in the predictions of special relativity. Under these circumstances, exceptional evidence is required to overturn a well established theory. It is not sufficient just to show that the same results can be obtained from a different philosophical point of view, because then the paper is about philosophy and not physics. In order to be acceptable for publication, a paper in this area must show that existing theory is not adequate in some way that is experimentally measurable, and then propose a method to remedy the defect. Your paper does not meet these criteria, and so it is not acceptable for publication. It is like saying that Copernicus was also wrong in saying that the earth goes around the sun, but without giving adequate reasons for your claim.
I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the reasons for rejection.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Drake,
I am very glad to hear from you and greatly appreciate that you replied me in your hurry time.
I deeply admire your profound knowledge, but I have to figure out that you hold a viewpoint which is the same as many people's views: there are a large number of experiments which have proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which is contrary with it. Therefore, it could be consider wrong only when there are new and conclusive experiments which are contrary with it.
In this regard, what I want to say is that these experiments can not be taken as the evidences of relativistic because other theories can also explain them. Einstein admitted in "Introduction of Special and General Relativity" that Lorenz also explained for all of these facts and experimental results. Lorenz has proved that the results of Michelson-Morley experiment do not contradict Ether Theory.
In recent years, many scientists express different views on the theory of relativity. For example, H. O. G. Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner, figured out that the theory of relativity was nothing more than a knick knack and it obliterated the distinction between science and pseudo-science. J. P. Wesley, a German senior theoretical physicist, said: "The theory of relativity has never been useful." J. G. Bernes, physics professor of Texas University in the U.S., said that the theory of relativity was "a disaster" and it's time to change the blind faith in the theory of relativity. "Physicists' general attitude to the theory of relativity is that they do not understand it but think it shouldn't be wrong because it has been recognized. I acknowledge that I have kept such an attitude until recent years." said by L. Essen, late senior scientist who was once the director of Time and Frequency Department of British National Laboratory. After his research, he finally found the theory of relativity was a contradiction full of loopholes. However, didn't they know that there were a large number of experiments to prove the theory of relativity was correct?
In 1970, Paul Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner, pointed out that the concept of Ether didn't die but it was such a concept that hadn’t been discovered some usefulness yet as long as the basic issue remained unresolved, and that it must be remembered that there was a possibility. In 1979, he showed further that the cosmic background radiation contradicted Einstein's viewpoint, in his report on the meeting in memory of the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's birthday in Princeton in the U.S. In a sense, Lorenz is correct but Einstein is wrong. Why did Michelson and Morley get a null result and why didn't they found the earth's absolute movement? The only explanation is that their technology wasn't advanced enough. However, present technology is more advanced than a century ago. With the modern technology, the existence of absolute movement can be proved.
Twenty years ago, I am also one of the admirers of Einstein. However, after in-depth thinking on the theory of relativity, I gradually thought that it was wrong but Ether Theory may be closer to the truth. I also understood why there were so many people that opposed it in the past 100 years and why the Nobel Prize judges refused to award a prize to Einstein for his theory.
In China, some senior professors said that those who opposed the theory of relativity considered it wrong because they didn't understand it. Accordingly, I put forward my questions but they couldn't answer them. Because these questions weren't written in textbook, they had not though them before.
Those senior professors also said that there were a large number of experiments which had proved the correctness of the theory of relativity without obvious experimental result which was contrary with it. Therefore, I asked them to answer the question in my paper that whether the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit around the optical fiber. However, they couldn’t answer it.
I deem that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicts the theory of relativity. I also have analyzed the reason in my paper. If you do not agree with me, could you tell me whether they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit? In addition, there were two experiments in my paper both are against the theory of relativity, didn't you see them?
I hope you are able to consider carefully about the questions and whether the Michelson-Morley experiment can prove the principle of constancy of light velocity. It would be better if you can discuss them with your colleagues and the experts who have been studying the relativity theory.
If you can not answer the question, why couldn't you allow the person who can answer it to express a different viewpoint?
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
In your last letter, you asked me to consider your alternative explanation for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by invoking the concept of ether drag. The problem is that one cannot consider just this one experiment in isolation from the many other outstanding successes of the special theory of relativity.
In proposing an alternative explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is incumbent upon you as the author to show that the alternative theory does not lead to contradictions elsewhere. One of the most important examples is the energy levels of atomic hydrogen. These are in precise agreement with experiment when the special theory of relativity is included via the Dirac equation (together with higher-order quantum electrodynamic corrections), but not when they are omitted. If one abolishes the special theory of relativity in favor of a picture involving ether drag, then you must find some other way of restoring agreement between theory and experiment for the energy levels of atomic hydrogen.
Unless you can do so, your proposal is incomplete and cannot be accepted for publication because it leads to a contradiction with the high-precision spectroscopic data for atomic hydrogen. You must similarly take into account the many other tests, such as the relativistic dynamics of particles in high energy accelerators, and the conversion of mass into energy. Particle accelerators would not work if the relativistic dynamics did not work correctly. It is not sufficient just to quote famous people who speculated about alternative theories. None of their speculations included ether drag as a serious alternative.
I might suggest that you submit your paper to a journal that specializes in publishing speculative ideas.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear professor,
I am very glad to hear from you. Many thanks for your careful consideration and valuable suggestions on my paper. They are very significant for me.
As far as I know, many physicists have realized that the theory of relativity has serious problems, but why are they still unwilling to give up their attitudes to the theory? Because they feel that they will be unable to explain these phenomena without the theory.
In fact, this thought is not entirely correct. The issue has been talked about in the first mail to you. Nevertheless, these phenomena can be explained by Lorenz's theory. If there were not the theory of relativity, these phenomena will be considered as the proof to prove the Lorenz's theory.
For instance, the energy levels of atomic hydrogen were accurately measured by Ives and Stilwell in 1938. This issue has also been talked about in the first mail. Ives opposed the theory of relativity all his life long. He repeatedly stressed that the experiment was not intended to test the relativistic. The same equation could be deduced by Lorentz’s theory and the experimental results have proved Lorentz’s theory is correct.
Lorenz agreed with the Ether theory. His theory, like the theory of relativity, is also not perfect. In addition, I can put forward my own theory, which can as well explain these phenomena which can be explained by Einstein's or Lorenz's theory. More over, my explanation is much simpler than theirs. This issue was mentioned in the first letter to you, but you could have not noticed.
Please read the paper I sent to you today. The paper has been published in the U.S. with the reviewer’s evaluation as follow: “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.”
Of course, my theory is not perfect either and it needs continuous improvement. However, I feel that if you read my paper and mail carefully, you will consider my viewpoint with many fresh ideas even if you do not agree with it.
I believe that we are far from the truth, but it also waits for us to explore continually.
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
Your paper has been rejected. Further consideration can only be given if you decide to exercise the option, available under this journal's Editorial Policies (copy enclosed), of appealing the decision to reject the manuscript. Adjudication of such an appeal is based on the version of the manuscript that was rejected; no revisions can be introduced at this stage.
Yours sincerely,
Gordon W.F. Drake
Editor
Physical Review A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,
Please pardon my presumption in writing to you. My paper was rejected by editors of PRL and PRA without any reason, so all I can do is to beg an appeal for a fair and just treatment to my paper.
The title of my paper is “Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment?” with No. LY11626A.
At first, I submitted my paper to PRL but received a rejection without any reason. I asked them twice for reasons, but they did not reply to me. So I switched to PRD, but they transferred my paper to PRA.
Gordon W. F. Drake, an editor of PRA, rejected my paper on the same day of receiving. You can check it with the reasons given by him, as well as my response. After I refuted his reasons twice, I requested him to answer my question via special theory of relativity. However, he could neither answer my question nor point out any error in my paper, but rather giving me a new reason. Furthermore, that reason also has been refuted by me, and he accepted my paper for the moment. Unfortunately, after a few days and without the experts' review, he gave me his third rejection without any reason.
Please read my paper which is novel and important and will reverse the wrong awareness of past and prompt people to change their views on the special theory of relativity via re-analysis of the past experiments. I think that is the main reason that why my paper was rejected by PRL and PRA. Another important reason may be that I am not an influential international professor. I think it is unfair and unjust.
It will hinder the development of science. If in such a way, Copernicus' paper doubting the theory of center of the earth and Einstein's special theory of relativity would not be published, because their papers would change people's awareness and they were not influential international professor at that time.
I request for your careful consideration on the questions and analysis in my paper, and you will find it is an important paper which only occurs once every 100 years. If the paper were published as early as 100 years, Einstein would have to give up his special theory of relativity, Planck would also rectify his evaluation to Einstein and Michelson would say that the special theory of relativity wasn’t supported by his experiment.
It's worried that it will not be able to explain the past experiments without the special theory of relativity, but there is really no need for that fear. If there isn't the special theory of relativity, those experiments will be considered as the experimental evidences of Lorentz's theory. Even if there isn't Lorentz's theory, a substitute will be put forward. I have a paper with the title of "Applying Neutrosophy to Analyze and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity" published in the U.S. in accordance with the requirements of PRA.
I believe you will treat it fairly and justly.
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Editorial Board Member -- LY11626A/Huang
I support the rejection of the paper from PRA and I am sure that such a paper is inappropriate for publication in any journal on physics. Actually, the text of this paper represents a series of speculations having no scientific background. The 5D substitution of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not a theory at all. The absolute time is something mythical rather than well defined and justified, as well as all suggested relations for the velocity with respect to this absolute time. The criticism of STR in the paper is based mainly on what the author calls "paradoxes" of STR and on mentioning some problems of the modern astrophysics which are interpreted as contradicting to STR. The latter is not evident or proved to be true, and cannot be proved by a simple citation of sayings of some scientists. As for the "paradoxes", they are mostly not related to STR and they are not paradoxes at all. In particular, the author is worried mostly about masses acquired by particles during their acceleration and occurring owing to the Einstein's relation E=mc^2. According to the author's formulation, if a particle is accelerated and if the increase of its energy is interpreted as the increase of a mass, then in the rest-frame of this particle other objects will be seen as accelerated and increasing their energies and masses. As these other objects were not affected by any forces, increase of their energy seen from the particle's rest-frame is considered as an STR paradox. But in fact, this effect is not a specific feature of STR. It occurs even in the case of a starting train at a railroad. For a person sitting on a bench in the train and watching in a window for what's going on at the platform, all objects will seem being accelerated and, hence, increasing their energies whereas in the platform-frame all these objects remain at rest. Is this a paradox? Of course it is not, but even if some people can think this is a paradox, the effect is not related to STR. Two comments more. 1) STR is valid only for inertial frames, i.e., frames moving with respect to each other with constant velocities. Rigorously, processes of acceleration are beyond STR. 2) In STR the relation E=mc^2 is simply a definition of the relativistic mass m. The latter does not bear in itself any additional information compared to the energy E. Relativity of the concept of kinetic energy is illustrated quite well in the above described "railroad paradox", and it's hardly surprising at all. A simple substitution of the word "energy" by the word "mass" hardly adds any elements of a surprise to the fact of relativity of these physical quantities. Discussion of other "paradoxes" could be continued in a similar way. But it's hardly reasonable because all this leads to the conclusion formulated in the very beginning of the report: the paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics.
Mikhail V. Fedorov
Editorial Board Member
Physical Review A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear professor Gordon W.F. Drake,
I appreciate that you submitted my appeal to professor Gene D. Sprouse. You are fair and impartial. I know that it is very difficult to issue my paper, as it challenges the mainstream theory. It is also very difficult for the editorial department to make the decision to publish it. I understand you.
I do not know what Professor Gene D. Sprouse's opinion is about my paper. However, it is obvious that Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not understand my paper.
Please note that I would like to publish paper LY11626A - Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? rather than Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity.
Analyse and Remould the Special Theory of Relativity has been published in the United States. Please see <<a href="http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf">http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf>;. The comments of reviewers are:
This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint, not these comments.
Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov did not make any evaluation on my papers LY11626A. I would like to know if Mikhail V . Fedorov Professor can tell us his opinion about LY11626A. Can the two beams return to the starting point O at the same time?
If Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov can not tell us, on what ground he refused my paper? Why he refuse to listen to different opinions?
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
I have reviewed the file concerning this manuscript which was submitted to Physical Review A. The scientific review of your
paper is the responsibility of the editor of Physical Review A, and resulted in the decision to reject your paper. The Editor in Chief must assure that the procedures of our journals have been followed responsibly and fairly in arriving at that decision.
On considering all aspects of this file I have concluded that our procedures have in fact been appropriately followed and that your paper received a fair review. Accordingly, I must uphold the decision of the Editors.
Yours sincerely,
Gene D. Sprouse
Editor in Chief
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Gene Sprouse,
I'm very grateful for your focus on my paper.
If I were editor, you were the author. If you sent me paper A, I refused your paper A before giving any comments on the papers but explaining that paper B is not suitable for publication. Do you think it is responsible and fair?
Now editor refused my paper Can the principle of constancy of light velocity be proved by Michelson-Morley experiment? before giving any comments on my papers, because my another paper is not suitable for publication. Is this responsible and fair?
No one can point out any defects in the paper, but no one agree to publish this paper. That's the same as what I encountered in China: no one can answer my simple question and no one can point out any flaws of my papers. They said, we admit that we can not answer your question, but we do not recognize that the theory of relativity is wrong.
This reminds me of a Danish fairy tale: the Emperor's new clothes are beautiful, which only smart talent is able to see. Ministers have praised this new dress is so beautiful, and dare not admit that he can not see any pieces of this new clothes. Finally, someone shouted that God, the emperor is wearing nothing. Ministers can not agree with him, but said that the person was not smart.
Nobel Prize winner H.O.G.Alfven regarded the theory of relativity as "a small display," "deny the line between the science and pseudo-science." German senior theoretical physicist and doctor J.P.Wesley said: "the theory of relativity does never work." Does it? I raised such a simple question, no one can tell the answer. What is the use of the theory of relativity? If some people ask the question to you , how do you answer them?
This letter is my final appeal to you. I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.
Professor Mikhail V. Fedorov criticized that my another paper is not appropriate for publication in any scientific journal on physics, which, however, has been published. It is not the paper I would like to publish now. Is it ridiculous that on the grounds of that to refuse to publish this one? Is it convincing? Furthermore, without the theory of relativity, I can put forward my own theories to explain the phenomenon that the theory of relativity explains. Can professor Mikhail V. Fedorov do it?
You can also see that no one can point out any error in my paper, which means that my paper is correct. Why can not the right papers be published?
I know the real reason my paper having been refused: a professor, has been for decades, told the students that Michelson-Morley experiment is the experimental basis of the principle of constancy of light. Now, there are papers said that was not the case. Can the professor agree to publish such a paper?
Although the majority of professors are unwilling to recognize the textbooks are wrong, the development of the history of science tells us that the truth will overcome the fallacy. Although the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the issuance of Copernicus's book, it can not save the wrong Geocentric Theory. Aristotle's followers evict Galileo out of the University of Pisa, but it can not save the wrong theory of heavy objects falling faster than the light objects.
We commend the Copernicus, Galileo's courage to challenge the authority of error theory, despise those conservative-minded people who suppress Copernicus, Galileo. However, when Copernicus, Galileo's papers are sent to the Physical Review, will you release it?
More and more people have realized that the theory of relativity is wrong. I believe that my paper can also help you to realize this. If you persist in refusing to publish my paper, I will contribute it to other journals. I believe that eventually there will be an open-minded journal to accept it, create a sensation, and rewrite physics.
At that time, how the peoples will comment on American Physical Society having refused my paper? Is the principle of the American Physical Society to impede its development but promote the development of physics?
I hope you'll be able to take a responsible and serious attitude to my paper as the attitude to the development of science.
Thanks and best regards. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Huang,
The decision of Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, Editor in Chief of the American Physical Society, regarding your paper LY11626A "Can the principle of constancy of light velocity..." was transmitted to you via hard copy letter on June 9th. Dr. Sprouse's decision, to confirm the rejection of your paper, is final. No further consideration of the paper can be made. You may want to consider submitting the paper to another journal.
Yours sincerely,
Amy Halsted
Special Assistant to the Editor in Chief
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editors,
Although my paper was rejected ultimately, I still appreciate those people including editors in PRL, PRD, and PRA and Dr. Gene D. Sprouse, etc. You carefully reviewed my paper. I highly appreciate your serious attitude. In China, it is impossible for my paper can win such treatment or reach the hands of the Editor-in-Chief of Chinese Physical Society.
Although you do not agree to publish my paper, you can not point out any problems of the paper, which is tantamount to that my paper is correct. This is the best assessment of my paper. I still thank you for the review process, which makes me more confident of the paper.
I understand the reasons that I can not make the paper published. If I were the editor, I find it difficult to decide to publish such a paper. I will apply to other publications. Please delete my paper.
Thanks again that American Physical Society carefully reviewed my paper, and thanks for each person reviewed this paper.
Sincerely,
Xinwei Huang

.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
This is what I was thinking, but somebody said it for me:

"plausible arguments should be set forth that these predictions and interpretations are experimentally distinguishable from existing knowledge."

I just skimmed your paper, but I didn't see a mention of such predictions. ??

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Please think about this issue.
MMX tells us that in the 1 meter distance, the light back and forth spent equal time.
However, in zhe circle around the planet, the light back and forth dos not spent equal time?
Rigorous thinking people will not easily come to this conclusion.
Please seriously consider this issue!
Please carefully read my paper
http://api.ning.com/files/Hark62hE1uMt2uQHmYnIptCnoMSBmVwR4Gsc1ONqXXZnJOalLs3GDgRoF6fc35dYyOu1ooXfqn0SxtL*iXC4F9NTsZXu-ADT/Apaper.pdf
Please think carefully about this question&#65306;whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time.
Please think carefully about why the APS editors can not answer this question and pointed out that any errors.

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Last edited by HXW; 03/22/10 03:17 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Sorry I found your paper too long to read entirely, but I almost get the idea of the circular light path.

What's the answer according to conventional theory? :
-If there's no unique answer then you surely have uncovered an inconsistency.
-If there is an answer then why do you suspect it's not correct?

I can't quite work out my answer. Can we simplify it by replacing the circular path with a straight path, having a moving light source in the middle and a mirror at each end?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Two way time transfer experiment tells us that we can not detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution. This means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.
Why the APS editors can not answer this question ?Because they knew that this would negate the theory of relativity.
Please think carefully about this question&#12290;

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, it's getting clearer. Your circular path around the Sun is a large scale Sagnac effect experiment?

We know from laboratory experiments that the Sagnac effect occurs there.

From what I've just learnt about two-way time transfer, the signal travels over the same path in both directions, so this should not show any Sagnac effect, which requires the paths to form a loop enclosing an area.

Is there a two-way time transfer system that should show the Sagnac effect but doesn't?

You could make this much easier for both me and the journal editors by simply deriving a theoretical prediction of the result of an existing experiment and showing that the actual result is not what you predicted.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Two way time transfer experiment tells us that in the ground reference system we can detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's rotation. Electromagnetic waves back and forth between China and Japan, the difference in time of about 90ns.
Why can not we detect Sagnac effect due to the Earth's revolution? It should be about 6000ns. Some people tried to explain that it should not be detected, but this means that two beams of light can return to point O at the same time after gyratinga circuit.
Please seriously consider this issue. Thanks!

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Can you refer me to this specific experiment/system, or explain more details of it in here?

Did the signal travel along a closed loop back to its starting point? Then they compared the time to complete that loop with the time taken to send the signal the opposite direction? And got a 90ns difference, but you calculated 6000ns according to Sagnac?

Did the path form a loop enclosing some area when projected onto the plane perpendicular to the earth's axis of rotation?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

This experiment is that at the same time people in Japan and China also sends electromagnetic waves to pass to each other via geostationary satellites. It was found that electromagnetic waves to reach Japan from China about 90ns faster than from the opposite direction.It is considered a result of Saganac effect of the Earth's rotation.
However, the Earth is also revolution. Why can not people find the Sagnac effect caused by revolution?
Someone stated that the angular velocity of earth rotation(&#969;1&#65309;15rad·h-1) was much larger than that of earth revolution (&#969;2&#65309;0.04rad·h-1), therefore the Sagnac effect produced by Earth revolution was so much smaller than that produced by Earth rotation to measure. This interpretation was lacking rigorous consideration. We know that Sagnac effect value is
&#916;t = 2vL / (c^2-v^2 )
where L is the length of circular arc between two points, v is linear velocity ( v = &#969;R ), &#969; is angular velocity, and R is radius. It seems that Sagnac effect value &#916;t is proportional to angular velocity &#969; , but it should be paid special attention to the fact that it is also proportional to radius R . Although the angular velocity of earth revolution was much less than that of earth rotation, the earth revolution’s radius R was much less than earth rotation’s radius r . Sagnac effect value &#916;t is proportional to the product of angular velocity &#969; and radius R , named linear velocity. The linear velocity of earth revolution (30km·s-1) was much larger than that of earth rotation (0.46km·s-1), whereas the length ( L ) of circular arc between two points (distance between China and Japan) was invariant so that the Sagnac effect produced by earth revolution was much larger than that produced by earth rotation.

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I had a look on Wikipedia, and it seems that your equation:

delta_t = 2 omega R L / (c^2-v^2)

only applies to a circular path.


In the China-Japan experiment, the path is extremely non-circular, almost a straight line. In that case, the general equation is:

delta_t = 4 A omega / c^2

A is the area enclosed by the paths.

If the signals travel along the same path in both directions, then A = 0, so no time difference is expected.

Putting 90ns into this equation gives A=3e13 m^2. Which is a square 5000km on a side. Sounds like more than any seperation of the two paths would give, so I'm a bit confused. Where can I find this Sagnac explanation for the 90ns? Was it just a causal opinion, or the result of an investigation?


A small lab experiment would have trouble detecting Earth's rotation because:
delta_t = 2 omega R L / c^2
R ~= 1m
L ~= 6m
omega = 7.3e-5 rad/s
delta_t = 1e-20 s = TINY!!!!



Have I made some mistake?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Now the Earth's rotation around the sun and simultaneously send a clockwise and a counterclockwise light. If the light along the Earth's orbit circle, they returned to the Earth definitely not at the same time, because the Earth's rotation around the sun. This is the Sagnac effect.

How much difference in time between clockwise and counterclockwise light back to Earth? It is about 0.628 seconds.

China to Japan is about 3,000 km distance. How much difference in time between the clockwise and counterclockwise light from China to Japan? It is about 2000 ns.

The two-way time transfer between China and Japan experiment tells us that electromagnetic waves from China and Japan, Sagnac effect size is about 90ns. It is considered to be caused by the Earth's rotation. But why not find 2000ns be caused by the Earth' revolution?

We must seriously think about these.

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
I think the Sagnac effect only occurs when the signal travels in a loop which has some area. Around the orbit of the Earth is a huge loop, so it should show the Sagnac effect.

From one country to another, and back again along the same path is a loop that doesn't enclose any area, so it should show no Sagnac effect. Even all round the Earth's orbit and back along the same path should show no Sagnac effect.

Do you dispute that a loop enclosing an area is required for the Sagnac effect? I only know this from Wikipedia and some odd websites, so I might be wrong. But I'd like to understand where 90ns comes from. There's no value in somebody claiming its the Sagnac effect without showing their calculations, maybe that person just guessed?? Also your 2000ns prediction disagrees with Wikipedia because you used the Earth's radius instead of the loop's radius, and assumed a circular loop when it was flat.

If you don't agree with me, please show what your references say for your Sagnac equation and explain how I or Wikipedia is wrong.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

90ns is the two-way time transfer experiment between China and Japan results.
Now the Earth's rotation around the sun and simultaneously send a clockwise and a counterclockwise light. If the light along the Earth's orbit circle, they returned to the Earth definitely not at the same time.
Please tell me how much difference in time between clockwise and counterclockwise light back to Earth?
If you have walked 100 km to spend 100 minutes, but walk 1 km is not the 1 minute?

Please re-think it.

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Last edited by HXW; 03/29/10 06:43 AM.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Hi HXW, You're completelly right!

As I explained many times, by using of light for time and distance measurements in M-M experiment (or whatever else experiment) it's not possible to demonstrate light speed invariance with respect to observer, because such measurement is invariant to light speed by its very definition. We should use some other, much faster waves to measure the invariance of light waves reliably.

Awt Explains Invariance Light Speed, Aether and Lorentz invariance, AWT and Lorentz symmetry violation

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Hi HXW. To answer your question, I calculate 0.63s.

I have explained why I think your calculation is wrong (you used the wrong value for R and you incorrectly assumed a circular path when in fact it is straight). Why haven't you answered me? Do you agree with me? Please tell me what's wrong with my equation delta_t = 4 A omega / c^2.

Lets look at it another way:

You send a light pulse along some loop so that it comes back to you. While it's travelling you move to a different place. When the light finally returns, it's come back to a different place. Therefore it traveled a different distance to what it would if you stayed still. Therefore it takes a different time.

If you sit in a building in Japan and send a pulse to China so that it comes back to you. You haven't moved anywhere, so the light takes the same time to return as it would if you didn't move.

I think you're suggesting the light travelled a different speed in each direction. But to demonstrate this you must give more details of the experiment, such as its name so I can do my own research. You must show that the electronics in the receivers/transmitters didn't cause any asymmetric delays. You must also confirm the signal actually traveled along the same path in both directions. If it was relayed through a satellite then you have to show that the satellite didn't move significantly.

But before we get sidetracked, you should still address my answer to your initial concern. I told you why your 2000ns was wrong but you haven't agreed or disagreed with my equation.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Hi Zephir,

I am glad to see you agree with my views. In China, only a few people agree with me. However, other people can not answer my question, but refused to admit the theory of relativity is wrong.
If I am wrong, why the APS's editors failed to point out?

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang


Hi kallog,

Your calculations 0.63s are not wrong.
Please continue thinking that circle of the earth around the sun is about 942 million kilometers and the distance from China to Japan is about 3,000 km. It is easy to calculate that Sagnac effect from China to Japan is 2000ns.
Please note that it is not 0. If it is 0, then the Sagnac effect from the orbit about the sun is 0.
Please note that 10000 ÷ 10000 = 1 &#8800; 0. If you think 1 is too small so it can be equal to 0, then it multiplying by 10000, the result was 0 instead of 10000.
But the two way time transfer experiment between China and Japan can not detect 2000ns. This experiment detected to about 90ns, which is considered the Sagnac effect of Earth's rotation.
It means that Sagnac effect from the orbit about the sun is 0.
Similar experiments in many countries have completed before, you can learn to the relevant parties.
The question whether after gyrating a circuit they can return to point O at the same time, I think the correct answer is answer 1). It is because the above experimental results.
In fact, we do not need this experiment, according to MMX is also able to draw the answer.
I hope that we seriously look at this experiment and seriously consider my question. If I am wrong, why the APS's editors failed to point out?

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Last edited by HXW; 03/30/10 02:50 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
If you look up Sagnac effect, you'll see it requires two signals to be sent in _opposite directions_ around a loop so they both return to the transmitter.

If you sit in Japan and transmit a signal along a single path to China and have it return to you, that's half of Sagnac. You also have to send the other signal in the opposite direction from the _same source_. Where can it go? Only along the same path.

There's nothing complicated here. This is simply not a situation that the Sagnac effect is supposed to occur in. Instead of scaling down the effect from the earth orbit, calculate it directly for this case and you'll see the answer is zero, not approximately zero, not 1, exactly zero:

time difference = 4 * loop area * angular velocity / c^2
time difference = 4 * 0 * anything / c^2
time difference = 0

Please identify which step you don't agree with.


I think the whole Sagnac business is a red herring. Your real point is that the signal travel time depends on its direction. Yes? Why not focus on this? MMX tells us the time difference should be zero, as you suggested. So the real inconsistency is between the predicted zero and the measured 90ns.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

the sun is about 942 million kilometers and the distance from China to Japan is about 3,000 km. It is easy to


To be brief. The critical mistake is:

A path from China to Japan is not a closed circular loop!

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Hi kallog,

I talk about three aspects.

1) This experiment is that at the same time China and Japan send electromagnetic waves to each other through the synchronous satellite. The results showed that electromagnetic waves reach the other side but the time is different. This is considered Sagnac effect by the Earth's rotation.

2) MMX tells us the time difference should be zero.
Yes, I agree.
The accuracy of MMX can only reach 1000 meters per second, while the linear velocity of earth rotation is only 460 meters per second. Therefore, MMX can not detect the linear velocity of earth rotation.
But there are more accurate experiments, why they can not detect the linear velocity of earth rotation? Perhaps they are not as high accuracy?

3) Here I would like to correct a misconception that Sagnac effect has nothing to do with the area of the enclosed loop.
Have you read Professor Ruyong Wang's paper?
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/PLA312.pdf
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/PRL93.pdf
His experiments proved that Sagnac effect also exists for linear motion. He proved that Sagnac effect depends on v and L, rather than omega and A.
If v and L unchanged, even A = 0, Sagnac effect remain unchanged.

My paper also said:
We know that Sagnac effect value is t = 2vL / (c^2 - v^2 ).
where L is the length of circular arc between two points, v is linear velocity ( v = omega * R ), omega is angular velocity, and R is radius.
It seems that Sagnac effect value t is proportional to angular velocity omega , but it should be paid special attention to the fact that it is also proportional to radius R . Although the angular velocity of earth revolution was much less than that of earth rotation, the earth revolution’s radius R was much larger than earth rotation’s radius r . Sagnac effect value t is proportional to the product of angular velocity omega and radius R , named linear velocity.
The linear velocity of earth revolution (30km·s-1) was much larger than that of earth rotation (0.46km·s-1), whereas the length ( L ) of circular arc between two points (distance between China and Japan) was invariant so that the Sagnac effect produced by earth revolution was much larger than that produced by earth rotation.

However the experiment tell us that it was not.

Someone believe that the ethers on the Earth surface gyrate together around Sun by the dragging of the Earth, but aren't synchronous with the Earth rotation. I agree with it.

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Last edited by HXW; 03/31/10 08:25 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Those papers are interesting. I think it may well be a more general form of the Sagnac effect.

However it doesn't appear to contradict the equation proportional to enclosed area. The Fiber Optic Conveyor (FOC) is not rotating as a whole, so the traditional Sagnac equation cannot be applied. They have found a new equation to describe this new type of motion.

There is a very simple way to analyse the FOC, FOG and China-Japan. It is this:

Note the location where the signal was transmitted from. Note the location it was received at. Use simple geometry to calculate the path length l. Assume constant light speed. Calculate travel time as t=l/c.

If you do this for a traditional circular loop, you find the transmission occured at a _different location_ to the reception, so l <> circumference.

If you do this for Wang's FOC, you also find that the light was transmitted at a _different location_ to where it was received. So again the path length l <> 50m length of fiber.

If you do this for a signal from Japan to China and back. You find the transmission and reception occured at the _same location_. So l = 2*distance between China and Japan.

Do you see this fundamental difference between FOC/FOG and China-Japan?

Notice that Wang has not shown that his results are in any way affected by the overall linear speed of the system, which you are suggesting. This is clearly stated by Wang/etc in the 2nd paper:

"Just as a FOG detects the rotational motion of an
object, a FOLMS can detect the relative linear motion
between two objects"

They did not suggest it could be used to measure linear velocity relative to the Sun!!

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

angular velocity omega , but it should be paid special attention to the fact that it is also proportional to radius R . Although the angular velocity of earth revolution was much less than that of earth rotation, the earth revolution’s radius R was much larger than earth rotation’s radius r .


I have answered this several times, and you can look up any reference if you don't believe me: R is the radius of the loop, not the radius of the orbit. A circular loop between China and Japan has R ~ 1000km.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Dear kallog,

Of course, it could not be used to measure linear velocity relative to the Sun.

I want to say is that Professor Wang's experiment

pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/90c6e3416e98735215c8a094f01f5917.jpg

tells us that even if the straight line Sagnac effect also exists. Therefore, we have reason to believe that, the two-way time transfer experiment between China and Japan should be able to detect the Sagnac effect by the Earth 'revolution. At least it should be about 2000ns.
But we did not detect it. What does this mean?

Best Regards
Xinwei Huang

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

tells us that even if the straight line Sagnac effect also exists. Therefore, we have reason to believe that, the


Yes, I understand that Wang's experiment can measure linear velocity. But so what? You can measure linear velocity with a car's speedometer. Mine says 0 right now, shouldn't it say 1000 miles/hour? Wang's experiment only finds the relative velocity of the TX/RX with respect to the pulleys. The China-Japan experiment is rigid. It may be moving through space, but the transmitter/receiver are fixed relative to China and Japan.

Originally Posted By: HXW

At least it should be about 2000ns.
But we did not detect it. What does this mean?


This means you put the wrong numbers into the equation.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Please see
pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/e454c8bea5931d61f448220e6c6e3215.jpg

If Sagnac effect of a circle of light around the earth orbit
T = 0.628 s ,

then Sagnac effect between China and Japan
t = 0.628 s × 3000 / (1.5×10^8×3.14×2) = 2000 ns .

But the experiment tells us that t = 90 ns,
and it is considered to be caused by Earth's rotation.

If t = 0 ns , then T = 0 s.
But T can not equal to 0, but only equal to 0.628 s.

If t = 90 ns / 365, then T = 0.0000774 s.
But T can not equal to 0.0000774 s, but only equal to 0.628 s.

Someone says t = 0 or 90 ns / 365, but T = 0.628 s.
This means that either he did not understand physics,
or he does not know math.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, I see the picture. I understand your analogy. You already explained it before. I already told you where the mistake was. I could be wrong, but you need to find my mistake to show that.

Originally Posted By: HXW

then Sagnac effect between China and Japan
t = 0.628 s × 3000 / (1.5×10^8×3.14×2) = 2000 ns .


Imagine a circular light path centered on the sun. It has radius R=268,000km. It's rotating with the Earth's orbit. The Sagnac effect is:
delta_t = 4 pi R^2 omega / c^2
= 2000ns
How is a 3000km straight path equivalent to a 540,000km diameter path?

Or if it spins with the earth (1rev/day), it would need a 14,000km radius to cause a 2000ns time difference.



Originally Posted By: HXW

and it is considered to be caused by Earth's rotation.

I find this quite annoying. I really am curious what caused the 90ns. But you refuse to reveal anything except 'somebody says'.


Last edited by kallog; 04/01/10 08:45 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Hi kallog,

It has radius R=268,000km ?
No, R=150,000,000km. Please find the relevant information.

Electromagnetic waves sent from China, arrived in Japan via geostationary satellites, less time than the return of about 90ns. This is the experimental results.

Why is it so? It is considered the result of the Earth's rotation, rather than revolution around the sun.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW
Hi kallog,
It has radius R=268,000km ?
No, R=150,000,000km. Please find the relevant information.

Not the Earth's distance. I was talking about an imaginary experiment. Please consider it again to see the spectacular size difference between a 2000ns path and a 3000km one.


Originally Posted By: HXW

Why is it so? It is considered the result of the Earth's rotation, rather than revolution around the sun.


That's only somebody's opinion. The person didn't give enough information to reproduce the result so it has no scientific value.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Are we far from the topic? I think we should return to this question. Please see
pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg

Can they return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit ?

Please note that the principle of constant light speed is just a hypothesis.
This hypothesis is based on MMX above.
According to this hypothesis, the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
But according to the MMX, they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.

Which is the credible result derived from the hypothesis or the experimental ?
Of course, the credible result is derived from the experimental rather than the hypothesis.

Many people think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
Please note that if the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. But has it ever been detected?

Some people try to explain why MMX can not detect the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s. They think it is reasonable and understandable.
However, they did not realize that this is against the theory of relativity.

Why? They think that the ether wind with velocity of 30 km/s should exist, but the MMX can not detect it. In other words, MMX is invalid experiment.

This is equivalent to say that the MMX can not prove the principle of constant light speed!

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

According to this hypothesis, the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%.
But according to the MMX, they can return to point O at the same time after gyrating a circuit.


Yes, the CCW signal returns first.
No, it doesn't disagree with MMX.
Why? Because the length of each light path is different. The light that travels further takes longer. They both have the same speed.

These pictures show the fundamental difference between the circular and straight paths. It's caused by the straight path having a moving mirror.




Nevermind what somebody says, or who believes what. That isn't physics, that's politics. It doesn't prove anything.


Last edited by kallog; 04/06/10 07:10 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
The link pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/eb38a9f9bbe7be0a8e3358dcba1e4da0.jpg is failed.
Please see pic1.xilu.com/1/3118/6237719/d6c698c33153555f2d41488b9769ec82.jpg

Please seriously consider, if you think that the counterclockwise light will return point O earlier than the clockwise light with time discrepancy about 0.02%&#65292;so the planet's surface is divided into innumerable equal parts, it also takes them unequal time to go through each part; ie clockwise and counterclockwise speeds of light are unequal. If it were true, then the ether wind with velocity of 30 km / s could be detected by Michelson-Morley experiment.
Do you think so?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Regarding the apparent non-c speed of light seen by someone standing on the planet's surface. That's explained by special relativity. If you doubt that explanation then you have to derive the result and show that it contradicts any other part of accepted theory, or any valid experiment.

However you can avoid that difficulty entirely. Use a non-rotating planet, and point O is attached to a plane flying around the stationary planet. Furthermore, the plane can stop moving when it transmits, and stop again when it receives. It only flys while it's waiting for the light to return. Sagnac gives the same result, but without any relativistic concerns.

I've learnt a lot talking to you HXW, but I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. You've clearly made a big investment in this idea so are reluctant to consider possible problems with it. I think you would do yourself a big favor by calculating the expected results of these experiments yourself, without prejudice, and without depending on the opinions of others. People, including professors often say things without thinking, because they're more interested in appearing to know the answer than actually being correct. After a rigorous analysis you'll identify exactly what's supposed to happen. If you find a genuine new discovery you'll know exactly why it is. Then you can write a paper that will be easily accepted by a mainstream journal.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
Many people can not understand why two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.
The question now is whether their journey is equal after gyrating a circuit they return to point O.
Many people think that they are not equal. Because of the rotation of the planet, the optical path of the light in counter-clockwise is less than that of the light in clockwise direction.
Although I remind that they analyzes this issue in the inertial system that never rotates together with the planet, which completely ignores the results of the analysis on the planet's surface. But they turned a deaf ear. They always impose the result analysing from the inertial system to the planet's surface.

I had to ask them to think about another question. Please see
api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2ogup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG

Viewing from the rotating disk, is the person's journey about 100 meters or about 300 meters ?
Of course it is about 100 meters.
Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk?

Many people think that two beams of light can not return to point O at the same time because Sagnac effect.
They said Sagnac shows effect up in GPS satellites.
Yes, Sagnac effect shows up in GPS satellites. However, please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V.
However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C.
Sagnac effect exists because the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C±V.
If the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is C, does Sagnac effect still exist?

My question is to reveal this.

I think that the two beams of light can return to point O at the same time.
If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ?
They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper.
This shows I was right.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: HXW

Michelson-Morley experiment let us know that the speeds of light in each direction are equal.

MMX only tested light travelling back and forth along straight paths, not around rotating circular paths. You're extrapolating to this case, and possibly introducing some incorrect assumption.



Quote:
api.ning.com/files/3-g0fF2x84RbBfYC8UIGakiS8f-yOI6UQyKWGQlgb9NJNhUPgZIouG6NcGyUGptucq1IiJHjztF2ogup7IVW1X884suQTr6J/file.JPG
Of course it is about 100 meters.
Here, why not impose the result viewing from the inertial system to the rotating disk?

Which path you choose depends what you're interested in. Equally his path is 1000 meters as seen from somebody moving past pretty fast.

Quote:

please note, the light speed relative to the GPS satellites is not C, but the C±V.
However, the light speed relative to the planet is not C±V, but C.

No, it's C relative to both the satellite and the planet. It's the path length which differs between the two reference frames. Remember that in SR length depends on the observer, and is not equal for everybody.

Quote:

If I am wrong, why the PRA's editors and reviewers do not point it out? Do they not understand physics ?
They attacked me in the past published papers, not this paper.
This shows I was right.

Not necessarily. It may show that they misunderstood you or your misunderstood them or some other human problem. Don't rely on people, they are all fallible.

Simply derive the result of a thought experiment using two parts of accepted theory, and point out that the two results differ. After you do that, anybody can examine your calculations and look for mistakes. There may be subtle mistakes which are difficult to see, so don't trust anybody who cannot find any.

You can also do experiments. The equipment needed is quite simple. Cheap electronics can measure nanosecond time differences. Cheap lasers can be used to measure sub-wavelength differences by interference. Cheap radio gear can transmit signals over large distances. If you are correct then its worth a large investment. It's your responsibility to do it, nobody else will spend their time and money working on your idea.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
H
HXW Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
I think I have said everything. But there are still many people can not recognize that relativity theory is wrong. I hope they can think deeply.
I believe that eventually people will think I am right.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Now relativity is wrong? What else? Is the Earth flat too?

To show that a theory is wrong you must either:

- Show that the result of an experiment is inconsistent with the prediction of the theory.
or
- Show that two results of the theory are inconsistent with each other.

You have done neither. Millions of people have thought relativity was wrong ever since it appeared. They thought that because it's counterintuitive and they never bothered to actually use it.

Science isn't politics. It doesn't matter who believes you. Even if you are correct, you'll never get the credit for it because you didn't actually show it.


Last edited by kallog; 04/21/10 04:22 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5