Real Relativity and the Apparent Speeds of Light.
Copyright © 2004 - 2014 David V Connell.
The cause of relativistic changes to the basic dimensions of matter (M, L, T ) is clarified, their values for different frames of reference are derived from a fundamental fact of nature and expectations of natural philosophy, these agreeing with values previously derived from the laws of physics. Applications of these values to known problematic, anomalous and contradictory situations arising within SR and GR, are used to demonstrate the underlying coherence and resulting lack of problems in real relativity. The measured speed of light is found to be dependent on the frame of reference of the light source and the location of the measuring instruments.
As the constancy of the speed of light still keeps appearing in the literature in spite of many indications to the contrary, this paper sets out to clarify the laws of relativity, and the actual and apparent speeds of light in moving frames of reference, as derived from fundamental laws of physics and expectations of natural philosophy.
The frame of reference (FoR) where the standards defining units of mass, length and frequency are kept, is also known as the “home” frame, and often chosen as the “stationary” frame for comparison purposes with moving frames. A frame of reference attached to an object, in which its velocity is always zero, is also known herein as its own frame.
Following the discovery of the Law of Conservation of Total Energy (CTE), and the realization of the equivalence of mass and energy (see Moving Frames of Reference) by numerous physicists around the turn of the century, the combination of those leads to the fact that the mass of an object must change when energy is transferred to (or extracted from) it. This change in mass (is only in an object's own FoR) is accompanied by changes in the size and resonant frequencies associated with the object and are known as relativistic changes. Thus, the subject of Relativity came to be recognized as being a genuine facet of physics.
The relative change in mass is normally easy to calculate or measure from the energy change (force times distance, or resulting kinetic energy), which is converted to its concentrated form (mass) according to the principle of equivalence of mass and energy (m=E/c²). The ratio of the final mass to the original mass is given the symbol § herein, enabling the other changes to be quoted in terms of §.
The relativistic changes in length and frequency in terms of the change in mass may be found by applying experimental results to well known physics equations (such as Bohr’s equations for frequency and atomic size) as in Natural Relativity (NR) , or, from the principles and expectations of natural philosophy, as in The Physics Puzzle , or, from The Relativity Theorem in , or, as in Nature's Magic, all of which produce the same results, given below, the change in length in moving frames disagreeing with that assumed by Einstein in his Special Relativity Theory .
The change in mass of an object by applied energy challenges Einstein’s assumptions that relativistic effects are caused by gravity and speed, for which there is no real evidence nor any known physical method of causing them. His belief in those two causes forced two theories of relativity to be invented to explain the effects, whereas there was an obvious common cause complying with known physics and requiring only one theory, based on energy.
The relativistic changes in the basic dimensions (mass, length and time unit), for each type of reference frame (the home frame and relatively moving frames) are displayed below. Time units are derived from frequencies, which are more easily measured, so the relativistic changes in natural frequencies of objects are given, from which changes in time units may be deduced if required.
1. Relativistic changes in a home frame, where energy has been applied to move a massive object a given distance against an opposing conservative force (such as gravity or a perfect spring), are,
its mass has increased by the factor §,
its natural frequencies have increased by the factor §, and
its length dimensions have decreased by the factor §.
2. Relativistic changes in a moving frame, where energy has been applied to a massive object causing it to move at a constant unrestricted speed relative to the home frame (at a constant gravitational potential), are,
its mass has increased by the factor §,
its natural frequencies have decreased by the factor §, and
its length dimensions have increased by the factor sup>1/3.
The last item above differs from the value of § assumed by Einstein, but has now been derived from laws of physics and several other methods instead of being assumed, with important consequences.
The above values are unique. Any other values violate the fundamental laws of physics and the principles of relativity deduced from natural philosophy. Therefore, Einstein’s theories violate those laws.
Thus, relativity is not mysterious, is not acting through gravity or speed to cause changes to the basic dimensions of material objects. These changes are the expected results of well known laws of physics.
Using the above values, the changes to other quantities, such as force, speed, energy, the Planck  constant, the gravitational constant G, density (which is important in controlling the properties of matter) and even the fine structure constant, are easily calculated from their dimensions. Here, we are mostly interested in the speed of light, but the reader is free to calculate any other as he wishes.
It may be noticed that the gravitational constant (G) does not stay constant with altitude unless the force of attraction emanates from a non-relativistic source, so, to comply with the expectations of natural philosophy that it should be a universal constant, mass cannot be the source of gravity. For further discussion of this see The Natural Source of Gravity.
From the above values, in calculating the speed of light emitted by a stationary light source moved to a higher altitude in the home frame, its frequency is increased and its wavelength is decreased, both by the same factor (§), the product (being speed) has not changed. The frequency change has been confirmed by experiments  and this basic speed, denoted by co, has been found to be constant at any height and in all directions in the home frame. Therefore the wavelength must have decreased by §.
When a light source has been accelerated to a constant speed relative to the home frame, its emitted frequencies ars predicted to be decreased by § and its wavelengths increased by §1/3, the product (emitted speed) is therefore § -2/3co relative to the source, as measured in the home frame, which defines its real speed.
The frequency change has been confirmed by experiments .
Corrections to the value of § calculated from speed may need to be applied due to the velocity of the Earth’s rotating surface (which is inertial), depending on the direction of motion. The speed is subtracted from the Earth’s surface speed of rotation if the motion is westward and therefore then slower than normal, resulting in a frequency increase. This is because rotation is absolute (it has an absolute zero).
What happens to its frequency, wavelenth, and speed, in transit after emission is not discussed in this paper.
The above values predict correct results in all moving inertial frames of reference with all known fundamental physics equations such as Bohr’s equations  for frequency and length; and the energy equations E=hf and E=mc² both predict the same change in E for the same value of §, unlike Einstein’s relativity theories. These values agree with all expectations of natural philosophy, such as G being universally constant, and the properties of matter being the same under the same physical conditions.
Some constants of proportionality are independent of § and have the same value in all frames of reference; they are universal constants. Others have a different value in a moving FoR depending on its relative speed; they are local constants. The speed of light c and the Planck constant h are found to be local constants, yet the fine structure constant, dependent on the product hc is a universal constant. It is the author’s experience that most physicists (and their theories) expect all factors of proportionality to have fixed values, but the laws of physics are proportional relations, the proportionality factors having new values to balance the equations when required by relativistic changes.
Measuring instruments transported in the moving frame (in which the light source and observer are stationary) would have changed in the same proportions as the light source, and the observer would therefore find an apparent speed the same as in the home frame, equal to co. The impossibility of an inertial observer detecting that he is moving relative to another inertial frame of reference without reference to external data, is therefore upheld (everything measures the same as in the home frame within all moving inertial frames).
For example, if the meter is defined as being the distance travelled by a beam of light in a certain time (1/299792458 of a second), its length in a moving frame would be § longer than in the home frame due to the clock slowing by §, but § -2/3 shorter due to light speed being slowed to § -2/3co, resulting in it being §1/3 longer, exactly the same as expected for a transported standard meter. The light speed, already slowed to § -2/3co would, in addition, measure § 1/3 less due to the meter being longer (so is then § slower in total), but is also § faster due to the clock running slow, so, in total, measures the same as in the home frame.
Therefore that definition of a meter is also correct when measured in moving frames of reference. This corrects some erroneous remarks made in Natural Relativity (Ref. 1) on these subjects in the Discussion (Section V), but not noticed by the reviewers (the physics of the speed of light was correct).
Thus, Einstein’s postulation of a universal speed of light, and other assumptions, have produced a number of anomalies in his relativity theories, and disagrees with the laws of physics and the principles of natural philosophy. The interpretation of the principle of relativity, in assuming that constants of proportionality have fixed values, only made matters worse. Those theories are invalid and new theories based on real physics as outlined above should now be accepted to allow physics research to proceed in sensible ways.
As local constants measure the same in a moving frame as in the home frame, and therefore appear to be universally constant (natures grand illusion), the definition of universal constants now needs to be “dimensioned factors of proportionality in physics equations whose values are independent of relativistic changes to their individual dimensions in all frames of reference”, i.e. are independent of §. Known ones are, (1) the Sommerfield fine structure constant, (2) the electrostatic and magnetic force constants, and (3) the gravitational force constant (corrected dimensions), all having the same basic set of dimensions (ML3T-2), which is independent of § in both types of reference frame.
All theoretical consequences of assuming light speed to be a universal constant are corrupt, such as the Einstein/Lorentz transformations, Einstein’s theories of relativity and gravity, time dilation, and “space-time”, to name but a few, although portions of some theories survive. Any theories utilizing anything derived from a universal speed of light offend the laws of physics, as do any theories and postulations disagreeing with the other facts contained herein. They create confusion and, in my opinion, should not be published.
Relativity is not mysterious, is not acting through gravity or speed to cause changes to the basic dimensions of material objects. These changes are the expected results of well known laws of physics.
 D.V. Connell, “Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion, and Gravity, on Mass”, Phys Essays 22(3) 402-412 (Sept. 2009).
 D.V. Connell, “Relativity, Gravity, and the Physics Puzzle”, Proc. Conf. NPA 7, 85-90 (2010).
 D.V. Connell, “A Relativity Theorem, with Huge Consequences”, Proc. Conf. NPA 8, 129-132 (2011).
 A. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper“, Annalen der Physik 17: 891 (1905); “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), as translated in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2: 140-171 (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1989).
 Planck, M. (1901). "Über das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum". Annalen der Physik 4: 553. Translated Ando, K.. "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". (Based on http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html).  R.F.C. Vessot, M.W. Levine, et al, “Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-borne Hydrogen Maser”, Phys.Rev.Lett., 45, 2081-2084 (1980).
 J. C. Hafele and R.E. Keating, “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains; Observed Relativistic Time Gains”, Science 177, 166-170 (1972).
 N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules“, Philos. Mag. 26:1 (1913).
Return to home page, or here to return to CONTENTS, if required.