## A Model to Reject Relativity!

Let’s see if we can establish a common ground of understanding by analyzing a landmark experiment that is almost a century old, a crucial part of modern navigational technology, but without anything like common agreement in theory .. the Sagnac eXperiment.(SagnacX).

From this analysis will arise a conceptual model, proven by natural testing, that rejects relativity and points to a familiar absolute frame for measuring motion and a universal background as the arena in which all events occur - the EM aether.

In the topics section, the Fizeau and Sagnac experiments then provide motivation for the ALFA model and Consequences .

Tests supporting and extending ALFA predictions are the Michelson-Morely, Michelson-Gale, Foucault, Aether motion, and Galaev tests.

Claims to refute ALFA are covered by the Aberration, Airy and Parallax topics.

## Wednesday, November 3, 2010

### ALFA model

ALFA model -  discovery of an Absolute Lab frame and a Flexible Aether mediumLet’s see if we can establish a common ground of understanding by analyzing a landmark experiment that is almost a century old, a crucial part of modern navigational technology, but without anything like common agreement in theory  .. the Sagnac eXperiment.(SagnacX). From this analysis will arise a conceptual model, proven by natural testing, that rejects relativity and points to a familiar absolute frame for measuring motion and a universal background as the arena in which all events occur - the EM aether.
An important predecessor to Sagnac was the Fitzeau experiment, which tested the Fresnel theory of aether drag in water flow.
In 1851 Fizeau found that Fresnel’s dragging factor applied to moving water.  The speed of light, SoL, is changed by the moving medium’s speed and refractive index…
SoL = c/n + v(1-1/n2)

For details, see  Fizeau test of drag
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Fizeau%20test%20of%20drag

Performed just 8 years after Einstein disposed of the need for aether in the 1905 paper on special relativity, the SagnacX was intended to show that aether existed, and Sagnac thought he had done just that.  He had, indeed, and much more that he didn’t realize then.
Three years from now will mark a century since Sagnac performed this critical test of relativity. Despite its key practical use in modern navigation, its theoretical basis is still far from established.

see  Sagnac test :    http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Sagnac%20test%20the%20key%20exp.

The ALFA  model:
Two metaphysical premises are based on the Fresnel test results:
1) Light speed in aether is always c  (c/n in transparent dielectric) , so
Vph,ae =c             where  ph represents a photon . ae  is aether
This is a key definition of aether’s properties.
2) Galilean velocity addition is valid.
The speed of a photon is its speed in aether plus the aether's speed in any reference frame x.
SoL = Vphoton,aether + Vaether,reference system   simplifies to
SoLx = Vph,ae   +  Vae,x    = c  +  Vae,x     where  x = the frame name

Predictions of SR, Ritz and aether models vs. Sagnac results    For all models, the measured rim speed of the rotor is v, so
3)  Vrot,lab = v

SoL for NO aether:
Special Relativity:
Axiom 1  is    Vx,y  =  -Vy,x  and  axiom2  is  Vph,x = c
Predicts SoL in lab and on rotor   = c      ….. X  X
.....both disagree with the Sagnac results
This implies there must be a preferred frame in which
Vx,y <> -Vy,x  !!

Ritz ballistic:       predicts  the source’s speed adds to the photon speed
Prediction: SoL on rotor = c         X     ..disagrees with Sagnac result

SoL for aether theories:
For all aether models :    SoLx = Vph,ae + Vae,x    and    Vph,ae =c
Static/fixed aether :  Vae,lab = 0   and  Vae,rot = 0
Prediction:
SoL in lab    = Vph,ae + Vae,lab  = c + 0     X     both disagree with
SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + Vae,rot  = c + 0   X     the Sagnac results

Dynamic Aether:   with full dragging,    Vae,lab = v and  Vae,rot = 0
Vx,y = -Vy,x  …. Assume Poincare’ relativity is valid

Prediction:
SoL in lab     = Vph,ae + Vae,lab  = c + v       This agrees with Sagnac
4) SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + Vae,rot  = c + 0       ??
To agree with Sagnac , Vae,rot must equal v, not 0…
Then aether speed will equal v in both lab and rotor frame ??
How can that be ?
BUT ….let’s recall that special relativity was refuted, so
Vx,y does NOT NECESSARILY equal -Vy,x in an absolute frame!

So we now examine the effects of replacing relativity with absolutivity.
From premise 2, velocity analysis,
5)  Vae,rot= Vae,lab + Vlab,rot

The graphical version of the vector analysis is shown above…
Now substitute 5) into 4) and use  Vae,lab = v:
4) SoL on rotor = Vph,ae + (Vae,lab + Vlab,rot)  must equal c + v
(the Sagnac result)
So  SoL on rotor = c  +  v   + Vlab,rot  must equal c + v
Therefore,    Vlab,rot  must equal zero (0) !
In the rotating frame the lab must be at rest. !

If relativity were true, Vlab,rot would equal –v = -Vrot,lab…..
Since the rotor speed can be any v, we conclude that :
The lab is always at rest with respect to any rotating system, x,
which contains mass to entrain aether.
This now restricts the x frame to any rotating mass in the lab system.

ABSOLUTE REST THEOREM:
Vlab,x = 0   where x is any rotating frame on Earth.
The Earth is the absolute rotating frame sought by Newton in the water bucket exp. and rejected by Einstein.
Now, using 2),     SoLx = c + Vae,lab + Vlab,x
Using the absolute rest theorem,   SoLx = c + Vae,lab + 0, yielding

ABSOLUTE FRAME THEOREM:
Vx,y = Vx,lab   using the absolute rest theorem.

The speed of light in any frame x:
SoLx = c + Vae,lab   using the absolute frame theorem.
The SoL in any frame  is c plus aether's speed in the lab/ECEF frame.

To review:
We started by taking –
1.      SoLx = Vph,ae + Vae,x   vector analysis
2.      Vph,ae = c                        definition of aether
3.      Vae,lab = v                       full rotor drag of aether

And the Sagnac result that
SoL = c  +  v    for both lab and rotor
led to the conclusion that
A.    Vlab,x = 0
B.     Vx,y = Vx,lab
C.     SoLx = c + Vae,lab

This exhibits sufficiency, that {1,2,3} => {A,B,C}
The premises imply the conclusion

To show necessity in addition, the implication must be reversed,
so that  {A,B,C} => {1,2,3}
We assume {A,B,C} is true and try to prove that {1,2,3} must be true.

By the Sagnac result
SoLx = c + v = c + Vae,lab
So
Vae,lab  = v   which is proof of #3.

Take Vph,ae = Vph,lab + Vlab,ae
= SoLlab – Vae,lab
Vph,ae = c + v – v  = c  using the Sagnac results.
This is proof of #2.

If the Sagnac results are true, then the ALFA model is true.
If the ALFA model is true then the Sagnac results are true.
Logically the two are equivalent, each being necessary and sufficient to explain the other.

Conclusion: Only the Absolute Lab(ECEF) frame with Flexible Aether model agrees with the
Sagnac results ….

(and with similar experiment types – Fresnel drag, M&MX, Wang FOC, Dufour&Prunier.)

For example, for the M&MX:  Note: MMX is second order  in (v/c)2 ;Sagnac is first order  in (v/c).
from the frame theorem :      SoLlab = c + Vae,lab
from measured ‘null’ result of M&MX :
SoLlab = c  + ~0 implies  Vae,lab   = 0
The aether speed is approximately zero at the Earth’s surface, so both the Earth and the surface aether speed are zero (within the M&MX precision limits).

For M&MX details, see   http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Michelson-Morley%20-%20MMX

for the Michelson-Gale large-scale experiment:
from the frame theorem:                    SoLlab = c + Vae,lab
from Mic-Gale measured result:       SoLlab = c + v
implies     Vae,lab = v                  v = aether flow near the ground
For Mic-Gale details, see   http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/MIc-Gale

The final version of the ALFA model is :
SoL  in aether axiom:  Vph,ae = c   Light speed in aether is always c
Vector speed addition axiom:  SoL-x = Vphoton,aether + Vaether,lab     Absolute Rest theorem:   Vlab,x = 0  The lab/Earth is universally at rest
Absolute Frame theorem:    SoLx = c + Vae,lab
So whatever entrainment frame x is used,
light speed only depends on aether speed in the lab frame

Summary of discoveriesDoes the aether exist?   Yes
Is the aether rigid/static or flexible/dynamic ?  flexible/dynamic
Is the measured speed of light an absolute constant?  No
Is special relativity refuted by experiments?  Yes
Is there a preferred reference frame?  There must be, since relativity is invalid.
Is the aether the preferred reference frame?  No – the aether is flexible, not fixed.
What is the absolute reference frame for motion measurement? The lab/ECEF frame.
Fresnel found that aether INSIDE matter is barely dragged by matter: Vae = v(1-1/n2)
Sagnac  found that aether OUTSIDE matter is almost fully dragged by matter: Vae = v/n2

Quick review
Sagnac -  The SoL is:
• c + v for the co-rotating beam, in both lab and rotor frame.
• independent of source and detector motion,
BUT DEPENDENT ON AETHER motion.
1) By definition of aether, the SoL is Vph,ae = c in the aether frame
(c/n in a transparent dielectric)
2) SoL = Vph,x = Vph,ae + Vae,x = c + Vae,x   ...  simple vector addition
3) Vlab,x =0
4) SoL = Vph,x = Vph,ae + Vae,x = c + Vae,lab + Vlab,x = c + Vae,lab
5)The dynamic aether model predicts the entrained aether will have the
same speed as the rotor, as tested.
6) SoL does not equal c when aether is moving in the lab frame.
7) Vae,rot <> 0 from the Sagnac result, proving the rotor is not the preferred frame.
8) Vae,lab  = v, same as the Sagnac result, proving the lab is the preferred reference frame.
--------
In this ALFA Challenge we solicit any responses that support or refute this SagnacX analysis, which concludes with the existence of a flexible/dynamic aether
and the identification of an absolute lab/ECEF coordinate system for measuring motion.

Please stick to objective evidence using the scientific method and logic,
as described in the Rules section.
Citing experimental proofs of relativity are futile, because logically inconsistent theories - like relativity -
can be used to prove anything is true. See the Googol axiom section.

MS claim:  Relativity predicts the correct results of all experiments.
Response: True.  Also predicts different  results for them.
For example:
There is an aether and there is not.
The traveling twins contradiction:  A is older than B; B is older than A.

Once free of contradictions and restored to logical consistency the type of applied relativity must be stated. Like ice cream and quarks, relativity comes in several flavors.
See Relativity app survey.

To disprove the ALFA model:
Do not raise issues that are ad hominem or irrelevant - focus on ALFA.
Do not use the Ptolemaic model as strawman; the neo-Tychonian universal model is our Best Current Thinking.
Do not ask for an explanation of  every relativity variant possible –
the subject is ALFA, not SR.

If you want to know why relativity predicts every test,
- read Popper’s coverage of inconsistency - see the Googol axiom post.
- consider the conflicting beliefs under the umbrella name of relativity.

What you should do to test ALFA:
Apply the scientific method using testability and consistency.
Examine ALFA for contradictions in its premises, logic or conclusion.
or with experiments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
For an English translation of Sagnac’s experiment:
http://www.wbabin.net/historical/pprhst.htm#Sagnac
For the extended Sagnac tests done by Dufour and Prunier:
http://www.wbabin.net/pprhst.htm#Dufour
For the linear version of Sagnac, see the Wang FOC exp.
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/GED_2005_MarApr_Wang.pdf
For the Sagnac result applied to electrons and neutrons, not photons, see
http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20sorted%20by%20topic/ifm%20demonstrations/borde1991.pdf

## Monday, November 1, 2010

### Relativity Survey

The theory of relativity is many theories of relativities -
when applied to testing nature.
The following statements can be and are - answered either Yes or No by relativity promoters. Just from this sample there are over 64 million(64,000,000) possible relativity theories, whose contradictions are ignored because "relativities give the right answer to experiments".
Yes, they do - inconsistent logical systems can prove anything is true! The value of these different positions to relativities theorists is that a set of yes/no answers can be selected to match any empirical test.
A win-win situation.

Relativists - answer these statements - take a stand!
1. All motion is relative and light motion is absolute
2. The traveling twins prediction is that each one is younger - or  older - than the other.
3. There is no aether.
4. SR applies to rotation.
5. SR applies to acceleration.
6. The cosmological constant must be added to the GR field equations.
7. An inertial reference frame is a system of space and time coordinates in constant motion in a straight line
8. No inertial reference frames exist in nature.
9. An inertial reference frame is a system in which the laws of physics hold true.
10. For any material body in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame in which that body is instantaneously at rest.
11. Length contraction and time dilation are real physical effects,
not apparent or just appearances.
12. Length contraction and time dilation are testable.
14. The twin paradox is explained by asymmetry -
the acceleration of one twin and not the other.
15. Light speed measurement = distance traveled by a light beam divided by the time to travel that distance.
16. Changing inertial frames is the same as an acceleration.
17. All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.
18. No experiment can distinguish the acceleration due to gravity from the inertial acceleration due to a change of velocity.
19. Relativity does not apply to the Sagnac experiment.
20. The Sagnac experiment supports special relativity only.
21. The Sagnac experiment supports general relativity only.
22. The Sagnac experiment supports both special and general relativity.
23. Clocks separated in space cannot be synchronized.
24. Mach's principle agrees with SR.
25. Mach's principle agrees with GR.
26. SR is proven by the mass and energy transformations observed in atomic accelerators.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when Albert Einstein we still believe.