THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT. . . . or is it?

                                                  Copyright © 2004 2005 2006 2007, 2008 David V Connell.

    We begin by taking note that speed is a universal concept, it is always relative to a Frame of Reference (FoR), and measured values depend on the units of measurement (e.g. miles or kilometers per hour or per second). We also note that relativity predicts changes to mass, length, and natural frequencies of objects.
    We will assume that light speed refers to an unhindered beam of light as in a vacuum in intergalactic space, as measured by an observer.
    It is accepted that light is either emitted at the same speed c by all sources (relative to the sources), or a medium exists that controls the speed of propagation of the emitted light to be c in that medium.
    In deriving the Special Relativity Theory (SRT), Einstein postulated the measured speed of light to be independent of the motion of the source and the observer, making it a universal constant (which violates the principle of relative speed).
    For the measured speed to be independent of the speed v of the source relative to the observer, there must be either an interfering medium always attached to the observer changing the incoming speed to c, which is absurd, or, relativistic changes to clock rate and distances always cause the measured speed to be c.
    If an interfering medium did exist, text books tell us that the calculated wavelength changes due to the source or the observer moving relative to that medium, are different, which offends the principle of relativity. These facts indicate that an interfering medium is never an acceptable theory for the transmission of light.
    Velocity of recession of an observer from a light source or an intervening medium should always produce an arrival speed equal to c - v, which is confirmed by the observed Doppler Effect. But, to keep the speed of light constant in any frame, SRT assumes that lengths change at the same rate as clock rates, so that speeds measure the same in moving FoRs as if there were no relativistic changes, and therefore cannot change the measurement of the incoming speed from c - v to c. That is, SRT is in conflict with the basic postulation in deriving SRT.
         Therefore SRT self-destructs and Einstein's postulation must be wrong.
    Thus, measured light speed cannot be independent of the relative speed of the source and observer. Also it cannot be the same c if the measurement of emitted speed has changed (as in moving FoRs, where lengths do not change at the same rate as clock rates). It is shown in [1] that when c is assumed to have a constant value in moving FoRs, a difference is found in the values of a unit of energy calculated from two well known equations, and it is obvious that this difference must not occur, so light speed cannot have the same value in moving frames.
    So now you know, the real speed of light must be constant relative to its source, but cannot have the same measured value in FoRs moving relative to the home frame. It is only a local constant, constant in any inertial frame.
    Unfortunately, a universal constant c is also the basis of Einstein's General Relativity Theory.
    A new theory of Relativity not using that assumption seems to be urgently needed. This author has submitted for publication one such theory[1] (much simpler than SRT), which confirms the above findings by the simple application of accepted physics equations. (See also "SR's Preblems", this web site). Other published papers, e.g. [2, 3], also indicate that Einstein's assumption regarding the velocity of light is wrong.
    Adhering to principles usually produces better theories, such as [1]. As Somerset Maugham once said, "The most useful thing about a principle is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency". This is not acceptable in Science (yet SRT apparently finds it very useful).


References.
[1] David.V.Connell, "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion and Gravity on Mass", Phys.Essays 22.3, (Sept 2009)
[2] H.E.Ives,"Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", Proc.Am.Philos.Soc 95, 125, (1951).
[3] S.J.G.Gift, "The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics", Phys.Essays 17.3, 338-341 (2004)

Return to home page, or here to return to CONTENTS, if required.